document resume ed 352 923 he 026 123 · 2014. 5. 5. · document resume ed 352 923 he 026 123...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 352 923 HE 026 123

AUTHOR Simsek, Hasan; Heydinger, Richard B.TITLE An Analysis of the Paradigmatic Evolution of U.S.

Higher Education and Implications for the Year 2000.ASHE Annual Meeting Paper. Draft.

PUB DATE Oct 92NOTE 72p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Association for the Study of Higher Education(Minneapolis, MN, October 29-November 3, 1992). Thispaper is scheduled for publication in John C. Smart(ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory andResearch, New York, NY: Agathon Press (Fall 1993).

PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) Viewpoints(Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.) (120)

EDRS PRICE MFOI/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Case Studies; *Change Strategies; *Educational

Administration; *Educational Change; *EducationalHistory; Educational Planning; Educational Quality;Educational Responsibility; Futures (of Society);Higher Education; Holistic Approach; Models; *SocialChange

IDENTIFIERS *ASHE Annual fleeting; *Paradigm Shifts; University ofMinnesota

ABSTRACT

This paper addresses societal transformations andhigher education's response to these changes and argues that a muchlarger and deeper change is occurring which should be examined withinthe context of a paradigm shift. The paper begins with a brief reviewof the theoretical literature on paradigms; then it demonstrates theuse of these constructs in a study of the change process at aland-grant research university (University of Minnesota). Next, thepaper enlarges the scope to briefly examine the evolution of Americanhigher education and to provide a sketch of the dominantcharacteristics of the current American higher education paradigm,based on entrepreneurial-populist principles and ways of thought. Thecase study demonstrates the power of metaphor, exemplars, and mythsin maintaining and even building new paradigms. The current paradigmof "managed populism" is expected to change to one with greateremphasis on quality. Leaders in higher education are urged to attemptto help shape these changes through: (I) recognizing and building onthe larger forces at work, (2) utilizing five key strategies (i.e.,focus on the customer, demand quality, build from collaboration,utilize technology to the fullest, and recognize the power ofaccountability measures), and (3) working on characteristics with themost salience for the emerging paradigm. The paper concludes with thepresentation of a framework for examining the approaching, inevitableparadigm shift. (Contains 65 references.) (GLR)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PARADIGMATIC EVOLUTION OFU.S. HIGHER EDUCATION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE

YEAR 2000

ByHasan Simsek

Richard B. Heydinger

University of Minnesota

BEST COPY 11;,..:,r.,",.:

U.S. OCIDARTMENT OF IOUCATIONOffice of Educe banal Ammich and Imetovenwe

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

eihni document has bean regfoducsel ISMewed front 11W areal of cegenitalanceigiimfifta

0 Minot changes new b merle II onrsterefacwoduchOn Quality

Pointe of vim ***onions staled in this does-mini do not necitaashly flipresent officialOERI pWnan of PebcY

January, 1993

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Hasan Simsek

Richard B. Heydinger

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

This paper is scheduled for publication in John C. Smart (ed.) Higher Education:Handbook of Theory and Research, New York, NY: Agathon Press (Fall 1993)Please do not reproduce or circulate without permission. Comments, reactions, andsuggestions arc gladly accepted. HS/RH (Ph: 612 - 624.8586)

4

ASH*Texas A&M University

Department of EducationalAdministration

College Station, TX 77843(409) 845-0393

ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

This paper was presented at the annual meetingof the Association for the Study of HigherEducation held at the Marriott City Center,Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 29 - November 1,1992. This paper was reviewed by ASHE and wasjudged to be of high quality and of interest toothers concerned with the research of highereducation. It has therefore been selected tobe included in the ERIC collection of ASHEconference papers.

DRAFTSimsek & Heydinger

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 4

PARADIGM SHIFTS: A MODEL OF FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE 5

Organizations as Paradigms 7Myths 8Metaphors 11Exemplars 13Social Matrix 14Internal/External Reality: The Hard-Core Environment 15Industry Kowledge-Base: The Soft-Core Environment 17Reading the Model 19

Organizational Change As Paradigm Shifts 20The Normalcy Period 21The Anomalies Period 22The Crisis Period 23The Selection Period 24The Transition Period 24Another Normalcy Period 25

FINDINGS OF A CASE STUDY ON A LAND-GRANT RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

THE OLD PARADIGMMetaphors Explaining the Old Paradigm 26Exemplars Explaining the Old Paradigm 27Myth(s) Characterizing the Old Paradigm 27Anomalies 28Attempts to resolve anomalies 29

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE POPULIST PARADIGM IN AMERICAN HIGHEREDUCATION 29

Societal Forces at Work at the End of the 19th Century 33

THE EVOLUTION OF THE POPULIST PARADIGM

THE PARADIGM OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE 1990SThe Managed Populism

36

4041

FROM ANOMALIES TO CRISIS: SOME EVIDENCE 43Anomalies Within the Academy 43Anomalies External to the Academy 45Chaos, Crisis and Coflict Lead to Selection of a New Paradigm 46

SHAPING THE EMERGING PARADIGM 481. Recognize the Larger Forces at Work and Buid on Them 482. Utilize Five Key Strategies 523. Work on Characteristics with the Most Salience for the Emerging Paradigm 54

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS 58

References 61

-3-


AN ANALYSIS OF THE PARADIGMATICEVOLUTION OF U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION AND

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE YEAR 20001

Hasan Simsek, Ph.D.Richard B. Heydinger, Ph.D.

University of Minnesota

Introduction

Our entire globe and our entire way of living is undergoing a radical transformation. Alvin

Toff ler calls it a "powershift" (Toff ler, 1990); the Naisbitt Group describes it as

"Megatrends 2000" (Naisbitt and Aburdene, 1990); Robert Reich refers to it in his "Work

of Nations" (Reich, 1991); and David Halberstam looks toward the "next century" as being

fundamentally different (Halberstam, 1991).

Tensions felt today by higher education are manifestations of these larger societal

transformations, with colleges and universities struggling to respond to these challenges.

For example, projects are underway to address cost containment. Institutions are seriously

pursuing the establishment of total quality management (TQM). Some institutions are

measuring educational outcomes. Most ins :talons are developing programs to serve

increasingly diverse populations. Nearly every institution has programs underway to

address the on-going telecommunications and computer revolution. American higher

education has been and hopefully will continue to be the envy of the world.

Yet today we hear with increasing frequency and growing emotion serious

dissatisfaction expressed about American higher education. For example in 1992 there has

been a spate of stories in mass media outlets (e.g., Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune,

Forbes, Time, and even the TV tabloid Inside Edition) which draw similarly pessimistic

conclusions about higher education's capacity to deal with its current challenges.

IA short version of this chapter, titled "A Paradigm Transtbrination in the U.S. higher Education: Analysisand Implications," was presented at the annual meeting of the Association For the Study of iligherEducation, Mineapolis, MN; October 1992.

-4 5


Legislators, students, parents, employers, and other stakeholders often imply that we are

doing "too little, too late."

This paper puts these challenges and criticisms in the larger, historical context of a

"paradigm shift." It is our contention that a much larger and deeper change for higher

education is in the offing than is usually being discussed. We are convinced that, indeed, a

paradigm shift in American higher education is imminent.

To build this case, we first review the theoretical literature on paradigms and

present a model of paradigmatic change designed specifically for higher education by

Simsek. We then demonstrate the use of this model in the case study of a change process at

a land-grant research university. The use of this model is then expanded to examine

historically the evolution of American higher ed :ration, paying particular attention to those

periods where paradigm shifts occurred in higher education (e.g., late 19th century and mid

20th century). To assess the current situation we repeat the analysis in the context of

todays' turbulent state-of-affairs, concluding that a paradigm shift for American higher

education is in the making. The final section lays out a number of strategies for higher

education institutions to consider in responding to the paradigm shift which is underway.

PARADIGM SHIFTS: A MODEL OF FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE

In a landmark study first published in 1962, Thomas Kuhn challenged the traditional

understanding of scientific progress which emphasizes "accumulation" as the building

blocks of scientific knowledge. According to Kuhn, the evolutionary process is always

punctuated by a revolutionary phase in which our understanding of scientific activities and

world views are altered. Thus historically the process is a succession of tradition-bound

[ "evolutionary "] periods punctuated by non-cumulative ("revolutionary") breaks. These

revolutionary breaks constitute what we call paradigm shifts.

In Kuhn's terms, paradigms are cognitive maps that guide human interaction with

external reality. They are frames of reference through which interactions arc put into a

-5-(;

DRAFTSimsek &

coherent relationship so that they become meaningful (Kuhn, 1970; Brown, 1978; Pfeffer,

1981). Paradigms can also be called exemplars or models.

A paradigm has three essential characteristics: (1) it constitutes a way of looking at

the world; (2) it is a way of doing things, and, (3) there is a social matrix or network of

Inman beings to adopt and practice the paradigm (Pfeffer, 1982; Mohrman and Lawler,

190 ). As we have each witnessed in our own disciplines, there is A way of looking at the

world which defines the subject matter, resulting in particular theories and models which in

turn provide an understanding of the world's phenomena.(Mohrman and Lawler, 1985, p.

152).

The way of doing things prescribes methods and instruments necessary to operate

successfully within the paradigm. The paradigm is learned by doing and it thus provides

exemplars which are frequently and repeatedly used. These exemplars tie and unify the

various models, values, and methods together (Imershein, 1977a; Steiman, 1985;

Mohrman and Lawler, 1985, p. 153). Similarly, the social matrix or network is important

because interaction among its members solidifies and perpetuate the paradigm. Without

human agents there can be no real paradigm. (Mohrman and Lawler, 1985, p. 151).

When the interaction between reality and our frames of reference become

dysfunctional, they cause "anomalies." At certain times anomalies are only single

inconsistencies, much like a tremor which causes some shaking but no damage. At other

times anomalies are part of a larger "earthquake" or paradigm shift underway. Anamolies

are most useful for they can bring to the fore both the fundamental assumptions of the old

paradigm as well as a glimpse at the emerging paradigm (Imershein, 1977b).

Anomalies also play another important role. Nearly all of our problem solving and

thinking is case-based (contextual). Major innovations are effective responses to

accumulated problems (anomalies). Thus, major innovations flow from case-based


thinking rather than emerging from previously explored truths, as posited by traditional

theories of change.2

ORGANIZATIONS AS PARADIGMS3

This section views organizations as paradigms by relating traditional organizational theory

to the research on pardigm theory. We build a general paradigm model which we then use

to analyze the historical development of higher education in this country. This model then

aids us in laying out the challenges facing American higher education in the next century.

Organization as Paradigm: A Socially Constructed System of Reality

As Figure 1 shows, an organizational paradigm is composed of two dimensions: the

metaphysical or background assumptions which are tacit and implicit (Domain 1) and the

action guidelines, strategies and hypotheses of action (Domain 2), resulting from the

background assumptions. Thus, formal organizations can be defined as a paradigm which

specifies the metarules, propositions, and underlying assumptions that unnoticeably shape

perceptions, procedures, and behaviors within an organization (Levy, 1986, p. 16).

According to Brown, a paradigm is both practical and cognitive. When applied to

organizational settings, it provides guidelines for organizational roles. Thus, paradigms are

essentially tacit, providing an "agreement" among members that enables the orderly

enactment of roles. Scientific paradigms define the nature of productive theory and

research; organizational paradigms play a similar role for organizational policies and

operations (Brown, 1978, pp. 373-4).

Figure I about here

2111is point created a major philosophical debate between limas Kuhn and Katt hyper in the earlyI 970s,

His section is directly summarized from Simsek (19)2),

-7-U


Domain 1 is the tense through which we look at the world. Viewing things from a

particualr perspective, theories of action are developed. In the paradigm literature including

Kuhn's early work, it has been a problem to identify or define the metaphysical or

background assumptions. To solve this important methodological problem, we view

metapyhysical or background assumptions in the form of "a belief system." These belief

systems result in "myths." It is common to think that scientific or other paradigms are

"mythically" untouchable, that is their connection to reality has been lost. We discuss this

point in more detail below.

Metaphors, on the other hand, are abbreviated descriptions of a particular belief

system expressed as an image. As an expressive (language - related) form, metaphors

facilitate communication of complicated shared assumptions by filtering and defining reality

in a simple fashion. The use of metaphors in defining paradigms is also discussed in more

detail below.

Domain 2 is a way of daing things, rather than a view point as domain I. Domain

2 explains "strategies and hypotheses of action" (Hedberg, 1981, p. 12). Exemplars which

assist in defining domain 2 are deduced from the belief system, or domain 1. These

exemplars guide action in organizations. They are the "visible" part of the paradigm. They

are examples of typical steps the organizational will take to accomplish its required tasks.

Myths4

In the organizational literature the myth is rarely given central focus and is often

overlooked. Yet it offers some real power in paradigm research.

4 The authors are grateful to Dr. William Ammentorp of the Department of Educational Administration atthe University of Minnesota for his intellectual contribution to the formation of the models on the basis ofmyths, metaphors and exemplars. lie originally had developed a paradigm-based model explaining thedissemination of knowledge among professionals by putting the concepts of myths, metaphors and imxlelsinto operation. For the use of his model in different situations, see Ammentorp and Johnson (1939b), and, Dethomasis, Ammcntorp and Fox (1991).

-8-


According to Campbell, a prominent figure in the study of mythology, myths are

nia distinct from reality. The creation of myths are time and place bound. They have a point

of origin in the past, and they originate "in a certain society in a bounded field." Myths

can also be viewed as experiences, for they create the ways in which people relate to the

natural world, society or a particular culture (Campbell and Moyers, 1988). Thus, myths

can frame and guide human interaction with surrounding social, cultural and psychological

environments. Myths can also provide people "protection" from uncertainty and provide

reconciliation between that which exists and that which does not really exist. Moreover,

myths are inherited from one generation to another (Westerlund and Sjostrand, 1978, pp.

3-4)

Other reseachers see myths as having negative attributes. They are viewed as

made-up stories which hinder progress. For example, Combs argued that:

a myth is a widely held belief that is not true. But people behave in terms oftheir beliefs and the damage done to human thought and action by the mythspeople hold is incalculable. Myths are major factors behind inefficiency ofinstitutions, breakdowns in communication, and failures to cope with manymodem problems. In educational thinking and practice, they create acontinuous barrier to innovation and change.

(Combs, 1977, p. 2)

Combs does list five characteristics of myths which are useful in understanding

them: Myths are shared across population, expressed in dichotomous language form,

sometimes containing a germ of truth, justifying human behavior, and often have become

institutionalized (Combs, 1977, p. 2), According to Combs, myths are nothing but a form

of widely held beliefs.

Jonsson and Lundin, who also define myth as "a set of beliefs," take a more

objective position. They do not view myths necessarily as good or bad, true or false

(Jonsson and Lundin, 1977, p. 164).5 Yet one dictionary defines myth as a"feeling that

something is true..." (Collins English Dictionary). Myths provide a set of implicit

5The discussion on belief firmly excludes any form of religious and spiritual connotations.

DRAFTSimsck & Iteydinger

assumptions about phenomena. They are influenced by a complex array of social, cultural

and psychological factors. Yet what is the difference between myth and belief?

One critical distinction is the difference in scope and life-span of a myth and a

belief. Myths are typically about the essence of human life, and they are inherited from

generation to generation; whereas beliefs are characterized by shorter life-spans and

represent many varieties of human conduct. Over time certain central beliefs can turn into

myths. Thus, myths can be defined as extended set(s) of beliefs, in other words, any

particular set of long-lasting beliefs might turn into a mythical phenomenon which later

becomes quite resistant to change. Since myths are not apart from reality and human

experience, they can be viewed as "a manifestation of symbolic images" or "containing a

germ of truth" (Campbell and Moyers, 1988, p. 39; and Combs, 1977, p. 2)).

Thus myths as depicted in our paradigmatic model of organizations (see Figure 1),

are forms of selectively collected and integrated pieces of knowledge that shape the

underlying belief system in an organization. This belief system is:

* widely shared by the members of certain community,* transmitted form generation to generation,* deeply rooted in the history of that particular community,* composed of a set of particular rules and principles that justify (or don't justify)

human behavior,* very powerful as often being institutionalized in the community, and composed of

a set of implicit assumptions about reality derived from a form ofknowledge embedded in it.

Thus, reframing Kuhn's concept of "metaphysical assumptions" or Imershein's

equivalent concept of "background assumptions" in the form of "a belief system" provides

some insights into ways of conducting paradigm research. The notion of belief systems

provides a conceptual clarity to metaphysical or background assumptions, and grounds

these terms so that they can he explored in organizational settings.6

6In this way, the researcher was able to design an interview question directly asking the respondents about"the belief system behind the Commitment to Focus," the strategic reoricntation document that shifted theUniversity of Minnesota's identity as an higher education institution. The message in the question wasgrasped easily by the respondents and the response rate was quite successful beyond anticipated (see Chapter5 in Simsck (19921 for more information).

-10 a


For the terms of this paper, a single organization (i.e., college or university) or a

collection of like-organizations (i.e., the industry of higher education) is defined as a

paradigm. At a particular time and place, a dominant world view organizes and directs the

activities of the organization(s). This world view, frame of reference, or paradigm is

defined by a dominant myth, a knowledge-based belief system and a set of exemplars

which are concrete and observable. The theory of action and the knowledge based is in the

background with the strategies and practices in the foreground. There is always a

correspondence between what an organization does and what it believes in (Imershein,

1977a; Brown, 1978; Hedberg, 1981). This knowledge-based belief system guides

organizational activities as well as defining, limiting or delimiting behaviors of individuals

and groups in the organization (Imershein, 1977a, b; Brown, 1978; Sheldon, 1980;

Jonsson and Lundin, 1977)

Metaphors

A second concept that can be effectively used in understanding the tacit background

assumptions of a paradigm is the metaphor. The metaphor is more concrete, more precise

than the myth.

"A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a term or a phrase with a literal meaning

is applied to a different context in order to suggest a resemblance." (Sackmann, 1989, p.

465) Besides its transformative power as a language form, metaphors also denote a way of

knowing: For example, scientists view the world metaphorically in developing their

analytical frameworks (Morgan, 1980, p. 611). Lakoff and Johnson posit that vague

concepts are restructured in terms of more concrete concepts that have clear meanings,

understanding, and familiarity in our daily lives. Thus, through metaphor the unknown is

explained by known experiences (Lakoff and Johnson, 1982, p. 112; reported in

Sackmann, 1989, p. 465).


Morgan argued that "the creative potential of metaphor depends upon there being a

degree of difference between the subjects involved in the metaphorical process" (Morgan.

1980, p. 611), with the metaphor being more concrete than the target phenomenon being

described. In non-metaphorical selective comparisons, commonalities are emphasized,

while differences are suppressed (Morgan, 1980, p. 611).

Metaphors transmit entire systems or domains of meaning, underemphasizing

individual differences and isolated concepts or phenomena. They create a mental picture

which substitutes for thousands of words in describing a situation. With their picture-like

nature of transmitting a complete story using only one image, metaphors are powerful

communication tools (Sackmann, 1989, p. 467-68).

Furthermore, metaphors transfer schema from one area to another. They filter and

define reality in a simple fashion such as "Richard is a lion," "the brain is a computer,"

"capitalist economies are markets" (Sterman, 1985, p. 98), or "organizations are

machines," "organizations are organisms," etc. (Morgan, 1986). Metaphors are very

powerful in describing the most important features of a complex array of variables in a

simple form, but they only provide part of a whole picture (Morgan, 1980; Sterman,

1985).

Metaphors are useful in the following ways to explain the tacit background

assumptions of an organizational paradigm:

*to clarify the belief system in organization which emphasizes commonalitiesbetween the nature of organization and of the used metaphor,

*to draw an approximate visual picture of the organization in terms of the dominantstrategic orientation guided by the underlying belief system,

*to provide somewhat detailed information about the organization by containingcertain linguistic components, specifically adjeciives and adverbs used in ametaphorical description.7

7All these points arc supported by the data collected in an actual case, and discussed in chapter 5 in(Simsek, 1992). For examples of the use of adjectives and adverbs in metaphorical descriptions and for theirhigh information content, also see Chapter 5 (Simsek, 1992).

- 12 1


Thus, metaphor in the model shown in Figure 1 refers to the short-hand description

of a particular belief system or myth. It is an expressive (language-related) form that

facilitates communication in understanding the tacit assumptions of a belief system.

Exemplars

According to Kuhn, examples or exemplars are the tool by which paradigms are

"learned." For example, students do not learn theories by studying abstract rules and

principles. Instead a theory (i.e., paradigm) is learned by studying concrete methods,

models and exemplars. Each paradigm has a number of central examples on how to carry

out research, consistent with the abstract principles of the paradigm. Students learn these

concrete examples, and thus paradigms are learned by doing (Kuhn, 1970). Exemplars are

so important in making a paradigm concrete and tangible that Imershein boldly stated, "no

exemplars, no paradigms." (Imershein, 1977h, p. 43)

Exemplars in organizational settings are directly deduced from the organization's

underlying belief system, and they guide organizational as well as individual action. They

are the most visible part of any organizational paradigm. Organization members learn the

dominant belief system of the organization through exposure to central exemplars, and

practicing these normative rules in their daily lives. These exemplars are highly visible as a

collection of typical organizational strategies and actions. (Hedberg, 1981, p. 12;

Imershein, 1977b, p. 41)

Exploration of exemplars in organizational settings is fairly easy compared with

tacit nature of the belief systems. "If the paradigm is already accepted, the exemplars will

likely be those examples which are most often or most consistently cited by participants."

(Imershein, 1977b, p. 42) Organizational paradigms penetrate the daily practices of

organizational members. Perhaps the daily job-related routines are strongly tied to the

underlying belief system through exemplars, for it is the one that "presently guides the


behavior of individuals at the same time that justifies their behavior to themselves"

(Jonsson and Lundin, 1977, p. 163).

Social Matrix

The "glue" which brings together these various elements of the paradigm is the social

interaction and communication among the members of the community under study. This

community may he a formal organization or it could be an informal group held together by

the paradigmatic characteristics noted above (e.g., a certain neighborhood community may

have characteristics that are strong enough to define it as a paradigm). This interaction

between people functioning within the paradigm, named the "social matrix," plays the

important role of solidifying and perpetuating the paradigm (Mohrman and Lawler, 1985).

The social matrix also plays some very specific roles. For example, it defines the

degree of diffusion of a newly enacted reality among the members of a particular

community, that is membership into a new paradigm. Paradigm membership can be used

to reliably identify the particular development phase of this paradigm. For example, (1)

the inception period is usually characterized by an increasing number of practitioners

beginning to attach to the new belief system; (2) this, in turn, helps the particularparadigm

to diffuse more quickly (i.e., "the snowball effect"); (3) a normalcy period follows,

characterized by the maximum membership a paradigm can attract, (4) paradigm decline is

usually identified by a declining membership with an increasing number of practitioners

either leaving or converting to an new/alternative paradigm (Sterman, 1985). This

evolution of paradigms is explored more fully in the next section.

In paradigm research, the social matrix plays the same role that the informal

organizational structure does in organizational research. Just as the organizational chart

-14-15


does not tell the " full story" on how the organization actually operates, the social matrix

provides essential insights into the status and development of a particular paradigm.

Internal/External Reality: The Hard-Core Environment

Although the study of organizations is a multi-faceted academic discipline, in general terms

the discipline focuses on organizational structure, the internal operations of the

organizational entity, and its interaction with the external environment. Typically the

organization is represented as an organizational chart with some reference to the

environment . Open systems theory focuses on the interaction of the organization with its

environment and discusses the relative permeability of organizational boundaries. Other

organizational frameworks focus on the roles which various people play, with both the

formal and informal organzational chart being drawn. The policies, practices, and

strategies of the organization arc cataloged and analyzed.

This perspective on the organization results in an examination of the practical

assumptions which drive the operation. For the purposes of this discussion we term this

the "hard" or practical environment of the organization. Through this lense we see the

organization as hard, solid, factual and concrete. It is through domain 2 that an abstract

body of knowledge is translated into a view of internal and external realities.

In Figure 1, it is domain 2 which points to the external and internal organizational

realities and how a particular paradigm translates an abstract body of Li Aedge into a

workable reality. Each paradigm finds its background assumptions tested through

exemplars (actions) in the domain 2. This is the day-to-day operation of the organization,

its relations with its customers, suppliers. and other organizations in the same industry.

Internally, it is the domain of experience for the members of organization as they

accomplish their roles in accordance with rules, regulations, norms and expectations

established in the organization, all framed by a particular paradigm or belief structure.

These employees share a particular view of the world, of their, jobs, or the function of their

-15-


organization as well as acceptable performance anc' a common language for

communication.

An organizational paradigm constitutes a theory leading to implicit background

assumptions.8 Central exemplars and models drawn from these background assumptions

lead to the strategies and actions of the organization. "Strategies are hypotheses, and

actions test these hypotheses, verifying or falsifying the theory." Furthermore, "strategies

are reformulated when actions fail to produce desired results" (Hedberg, 1981, p. 12).

Inconsistencies between the prescriptions and expectations imposed by the dominant belief

system and their actual outcomes arise from two different characteristics of the paradigm.

In the first case, it may he due to misinterpretation of the belief system and an inappropriate

strategy in the form of exemplar. This is corrected through "puzzle solving" revisions to the

paradigm. In the second case, it may be due to the inadequacy of the paradigm belief

system in explaining the particular case with puzzle solving resulting in continuous failures.

The number of anomalies grows, and u paradigm shift is often warranted (we will return to

this point later).

To further our inquiry into this domain of internal/extrenal organizational reality, it

is important to examine the relationship between a single organization and its counterparts

in the same industry. In classic organizational theory, individual organizations are taken as

separate entities. Their relationships with the external environment is analyzed using the

asumptions of the functionalist systems approach. Some scholars give precedence to

environmental forces in determining the survivability of an organization; this perspective

dominates the population-ecology approach (Hannan and Freeman, 1977; Freeman, 1982).

Other organizational scientists argue that, although the external environment carries with it

important constraints, any specific organization may engage in the development of

811te intellectual background of the model concerning the interaction between the organitation and (Ileexternal environment in the Figure 1 was originally appeared in lledherg and Jonsson (1977), Thisparticular discussion took place in l lcdhcrg (1981),

- 16- ry


proactive strategies to change the environment, thereby enhancing the particular

organization's survivability. Such strategies might include collaboration, mergers,

acquisitions, or the uses of new technologies. This theory is termed the "resource

dependence view of organizations" (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). The consistency

theory, which represents a third proposal, emphasizes a fine-tuning between internal and

external variables. "There is no one best way of organizing, Mlle appropriate form depends

on the kind of task or environment with which one is dealing" (Morgan, 1986, p. 49). The

best fit can only be achieved through a tine tuning of such internal variables as structure,

strategy, technology, culture and management (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Woodward,

1965; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Miles, 1980).

All three of these theories focus on the interaction between the organization and its

environment. Implicit is the belief that if the organization is acting in concert with its

environment, the organization will be able to sustain a desired strategic course. However,

we feel that all of these approaches miss the dramatic leaps which can occur when new

technologies are introduced. Such technologies leave no company within the industry (or

the industry's paradigm) unaffected. A most dramatic example is the introduction of the

electronic quartz watch which revolutionized the time-keeping industry. Paradigms "in-

force" --- almost by definition -- imply that organizations should innovate gradually and not

get outside of the paradigm. Thus a single organization which might usher in a new

paradigm typically comes from outside the set of companies which comprise the current

industrial paradigm.

industry Knowledge-Base: The Soft Environment

Paradigm theory points us toward a second, equally important aspect of the organization:

the industry's knowledge-base or the "soft" environment. This domain, shown in Figure 2,

represents the tacit body of knowledge generated and accumulated over time. It is typically

located outside the organization but has significant impact on the root paradigms of the

177


organization under study. A knowledge-base is essential for all systems. It is "a

preexistent, socially constructed resource" that bears important implications for all

organizations operating in a particular market (Toff ler, 1991, p. 84).

Figure 2 about here

Each organization is a member of a particular sector or industry including

organizations with similar functions (e.g. computer industry, higher education sector,

telecommunication sector, fast-food industry, etc.). New ideas and methods resulting from

purposeful or accidental learning by other organizations within the same sector are

abstracted and grouped as root-paradigms. They add to the knowledge pool for this

industry. This knowledge is both concrete (exemplary) and tacit (assumptive), implicit and

explicit at the same time. Essentially, it is a symbolic resource for all organizations.

This point has led to a debate about the role which technology plays in shaping

paradigms and causing their evolution. For example, Tushman and Romanelli (1985)

argue that major shifts in the product class [market] may be caused by technology:

Technology is a basic product class resource which changes systematicallyover time and is a major determinant in shaping the evolution of a productclass. Case studies across a range of technologies find that technologicalprogress constitutes an evolutionary system marked by long periods ofincremental change punctuated by infrequent technological breakthroughswhich lead, in turn, to the next period of incremental technological change

(Tushman and Romanelli, 1985, p. 198).

The evolution of product class is a process through which a dominant design

emerges out of a synthesis of a large number of proven concepts after substantial

technological experimentation [emphasis added] (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985, p. 198).

Each technological breakthrough such as the Model T Ford, the DC-3 airplane, or personal

computers result in a new understanding of the world and thus alter both the "hard" and the

"soft" environments of the organization (i.e., its paradigm)

1..-18-

DRAFTSimsek & I leydinger

Imershein reframed this argument to say that technology jtself is not a cause for

change, but it is the knowledge of technology that creates fundamental changes in

organizations (1977a, p. 37). Regardless of one's position on this point, there is strong

evidence that changes in the technology sphere lead to significant changes in organizational

paradigms. As Figure 2 points out, it is this upper dimension that represents the body of

knowledge accumulated over time. This tacit knowledge pool, located outside the

organization, contains sets of structured knowledge groups and root-paradigms.

As a new technology creates a fundamental shift in the knowledge structure

embracing a number of organizations, a revolutionary process unfolds in related

organizations as others try to develop ways of converting themselves to the new

knowledge-base. A new, dominant design within a product class that "seems to hold across

industries" creates knowledge-driven cognitive shifts in the world views of organizational

members. (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985, p. 198)

In this paradigm succession process, new and young organizations are the ones that

are most able to create new paradigms in a particular industry. Kuhn argued that many new

paradigms in the scit -v.es were brought into the scene by young scholars who were often

new to their area of study (Kuhn, 1972). In organizational contexts, similar observations

have been made by organization scientists that in the evolution of product classes, new

firms and firms from outside the industry are the strongest candidates for major innovations

(Tushman and Romanelli, 1985, p. 200).

Beading the Model

To summarize, the organizational paradigm shown at the center of Figure 2 consists

of organizational myths, metaphors,and exemplars. The relationship between the

organization and the intemallextemal organizational realities is shown purposely by a

continuous line, while the relationship with the industry-knowledge base is shown by a

broken line. This is intended to convey that most of an organization's activity occurs

-19- r)4 9


between the organization and its hard-core environment. The model is not intended to

imply any deterministic or universal commonalities among organizations. Two

organizations opertaing under similar paradigm belief systems might operate quite

differen.'y, or might start from similar conditions and end up with different characteristics.

The determining factor is the synergy created by the interactions between paradigm

specifics and individual members of the organization, for paradigms are adjusted to the

needs of each particular user community (Mohrman and Lawler, 1985). Each organization

is unique in its characteristics. Its "personality" is defined by the particular context in which

it operates, its history, its successes and failures and its interpretation of external/internal

realities. This constant interaction is shown by the continuous line.

The broken line between the organization paradigm and the industry knowledge-

base conveys that the relationship is not constant or continuous. Depending upon the status

of the dominant paradigm, organizations can he relatively closed to the industry

knowledge-base. This typically happens during periods of "normalcy." However, when

anomalies develop, accompanied by a general dissatisfaction and deterioration of

performance, organizational members begin to look for alternative ways of doing things.

They look more actively to the industry knowledge-base as well as exemplars and models

from similar organizations. As these anomalies continue to mount, a crisis period can

result for the paradigm. These successive periods of normalcy, anomalies, and crisis are

discussed in detail in the next section.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AS A PARADIGM SHIFT

This section takes the organizational paradigm model described in the previous section and

adds a temporal dimension, permitting us to trace the evolution of organizations and their

paradigms (see Figure 3). Although Kuhn specified four steps in a paradigm shift, we

have modified his work by hypothesizing a six step model: Normalcy period, anomalies,

-20-

DRAFTSimsck & Hcydingcr

crisis, selection (revolution), transition, and, finally another normalcy period emerges.

These are shown at the bottom of Figure 3.

The Normalcy Period is characterized by gradual change with the organization

making adaptations as necessary to continue to thrive. Typically, a particular paradigm is

dominant and invisibly guides organizational activities, much like Adam Smith's invisible

hand of the marketplace. There is a body of tacit organizational knowledge utilized in

reference to these organizational activities. "Roles as well as the definition of 'problems',

'responsible opinion', 'leadership', and so on, are afforded by [this] dominant model"

(Brown, 1978, p. 374).

According to Kuhn, during the normalcy period the basic activity in which

scientists engage is puzzle solving. Similarly, during this period organizational leaders and

practitioners are making gradual adjustments in response to unexpected changes occurring

in and outside the organization. In this period, the metaphors, myths and exemplars are

well known and taken for granted. They are not questioned even though there may be

some inconsistencies occurring between expectations provided by the dominant myth and

the reality occuring from the organizational actions taken (Sterman, 1985; Sheldon, 1980).

This is also a period in which a negotiated political order among the key interest

groups prevails (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985, p. 201), as well an accepted dominant

management style (Greiner, 1972). In the normalcy period, "more effective organizations

will have a complementary set of senior management skills, a stable executive team, a

reliance on sequential internal promotion patterns, and on incremental substantive change

managed by middle and lower level management" (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985, p.

196).

Figure 3 about here

2; )$4,

DRAFTSimsek & ileydinger

The Anomalies Period which follows comes about from unresolved or delayed

issues (puzzles) or from sudden and unexpected changes occurring inside or outside of the

organization. According to Miller and Friesen, anomalies most likely occur when an

organization relies excessively on a particular strategic direction (Miller and Friesen, 1980).

The first indicator of an anomalous situation is when "the dominant organizational myth can

no longer produce convincing strategies" (Hedberg, 1981, p. 12) resulting in sustained low

performance. According to Tushman and Romanelli, low performance, in turn, disrupts the

negotiated order in the organization which triggers an organizational reorientation

(Tushman and Romanelli, 1985, pp. 202-3). To move from normalcy to the anomalies

period, organizational issues or puzzles must remain unresolved for a considerable period,

resulting in a threshold level of negative information which shades doubts on the power of

the dominant myth (Jonsson and Lundin, 1977, 163).

Even in the face of contintiow: ilegative information, organizational members --

especially the managerial elite -- still tike for granted the dominant world view, rules,

principles, models, and exemplars conveyed by the current paradigm. In dealing with this

situation, "individuals might be avoiding contact with that type of information again, or

actively searching for supporting, positive information" (Jonsson and Lundin, 1985, p.

163). Under a prevailing myth, organizations become dynamically conservative (Tushman

and Romanelli, 1985, p. 202), and, as Sheldon argued, "members of the organization

collude to avoid any questioning of their ideology [myths and metaphor based background

assumptions] or what they do [actions taken provided by models and exemplars]..."

(Sheldon, 1980, p. 63).

The chaos and the self-organization perspectives on systems theory maintain that

triggering events and random shocks occur throughout the life of an organization and

paradigm. During periods of normalcy, these shocks have minimal impact and

organizations adopt to them by making changes as they perceive necessary. The dominant

2 2-22-


paradigm "provides" answers to the puzzles and issues presented from within or outside

the organization.

However, if the paradigm is unstable, shocks which may have caused little change

during a normalcy period can trigger a series of events which can push the system away

from equilibrium into an unpredictable state. (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984; Griffitts et.al,

1991) It is precisely during these conditions that a paradigm can move from a period of

anamolies to crisis. This occurs because "tangible indicators of a crisis are needed to create

a common feeling among members of the group that something is wrong" (Jonsson and

Lundin, 1977, p. 165). 'Theo; tangible events might he some seemingly unrelated

development (minor ones under normal conditions) in and outside the organization, such as

"sustained low performance, major shifts in the distribution of power Wit. In the firm,

and/or discontinuous changes in product class conditions" (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985,

p. 205).

Because these trigerring events and random shocks occur throughout an

organization's history, they are shown across the entire time dimension shown in Figure 3.

The Crisis Period emerges as organizational members begin to look for new

ways of thinking and alter iative world views. The organization becomes more interactive

with its environment and the industry knowledge base, looking for alternative ways to "do

business." At the same time, the regulated or negotiated order among interest groups and

stakeholders of the organization becomes chaotic, possibly triggering a "political process"

or renegotiation of the established order (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985, p. 201-2;

Jonsson and Lundin, 1977, p. 165).

For example, in the sciences during a crisis period, new theories and ad hoc patches

to old theories are proposed (Sterman, 1985, p. 96). Organizational members may rally

around a particular alternative, while competing ideas trying to find supporters. According

to Jonsson and Lundin:

-23-

DRAFTSimsek & lIcydinger

...one possible outcome of the political process might be the emergence ofcompeting new myths. That is, a dominant coalition may not form aroundone alternative; individuals might gather in antagonistic groups and discussends and means of the present situation. The temporary result is paralysis ofaction.

(1977, p. 165)

The Selection Period follows this period of crisis, us candidates for the

dominant paradigm are developed. Almost by definition, these competing ideas are

untested (Sterman, 1985, p. 95). Theoretically each idea has an equal chance to be selected

as the next dominant paradigm. How this selection occurs has been debated in the literature

with competing perspectives.

Jonsson and Lundin view paradigm selection from a rationalistic perspective.

Selection of the next dominant paradigm occurs as a result of group deliberations. Kuhn

with his work on scientific paradigms also viewed selection similarly.

However, this perspective overlooks important dimensions of organizational

Characteristics: existence of formal power, authority and influence. Brown first saw this

relationship, of "the imposition of [a paradigm] reality by more powerful groups" in

organizations (Brown, 1978, p. 375). Selection or decision-making is not always a

rational process in which alternative paradigms compete with each other in terms of their

explanatory power; rather, paradigm selection must be seen much more as a political

process. Just as the Beta-max video recorder may have been a superior technological

product, nevertheless, the VHS machine prevailed in the United States because of reasons

of organizatinal power and influence. For these reasons, the next organizational paradigm

is most likely the one which is championed by the key internal and external sources of

power and authority. In Figure 3, the selective mechanism for preferring one paradigm

over others is stated as "access to power and influence." This characteristic is not an

element in Kuhn's work on scientific paradigms and in the related literature.

The Transition Period follows the emergence of a new paradigm, much like the

transition between election and inauguration. However, certainly none of this is marked in

-24-


any way by the clear delineation of events or dates. Instead, the distinction between crisis,

selection, and transition can only be delineated historically and is the work of organizational

and social historians.

As the new paradigm gains superiority, a wave of enthusiasm appears in the

organization. This happens with the establishment of new power relations and appearance

of new actors on stage. Instability characterizes the initial policy formation period of the

new paradigm. The process is typically the beginning ofnew organizational structures,

procedures and systems (Jonsson and Lundin, 1977, p. 157). Under new sets of

metaphors, myths, and, exemplars, another period of paradigm life-cycle begins, and the

social matrix of the paradigm continues to extend within the organization. Change becomes

evolutionary and incremental; performance and political order stabilizes over time. During

this period of normalcy, the organization and the paradigm gradually gain the

characteristics of a more closed system, becoming somewhat oblivious to new information

in the industry-knowledge base and resistant to anomalous information.

When applied to American higher education, this model (summarized in Figures 2

and 3)provides: (1) Insights into the forces currently influencing the change process in

higher education; 2) A holistic framework liar understanding individual institutional change

efforts and their connection to change underway at the larger system level; and (3) A

framework for both speculation and prescription about paradigmatic change which we

argue is inevitable in the near future.

The next section presents the application of the model to a specific organization, a

large, land-grant research university. This discussion is intended to offer the reader insight

into the applicability of tk, model in case study research and to also provide greater real-

world understanding of the theories underlying the model,

The remaining sections utilize the model more broadly by tracing the development

of higher education in the United States, using a Kuhn-like paradigm approach. This

historical examination sets the stage 14 the final section of the paper which points the

-254'


reader toward the future and the paradigm shill in higher education which we are convinced

is underway.

FINDINGS OF A CASE STUDY ON A LAND-GRANT RESEARCHUNIVERSITY

This section of the paper builds on the results of an empirical case study carried out by

Simsek (1992) at the University of Minnesota. Data was collected through a series of

twenty-four interviews with five randomly selected faculty from five departments in the

largest colleges in the University. Each faculty member had been at the University for at

least ten years. Each interview lasted about 45 minutes. The researcher developed twelve

mutually exclusive categories relating to the "old" and the "in-use" paradigms. Interviews

were transcribed and a qualitative method of content analysis was used to develop tags and

sort the two-hundred pages of transcript by contextual similarity into the twelve categories.

This findings are discussed below.

THE OLD PARADIGM

Metaphors explaining the old paradigms

Respondents at the University of Minnesota replied four sets of dominant

metaphors as best explaining the old paradigm: Amoeba, octopus, elephant, and a

wildly growing garden.

Frotn these metaphors, some interesting insights are gleaned about the old

paradigm. For example, amoeba is a one cell organism which is essentially shapeless and

multiplies by division. If you push it one place, it pops out in another place. This metaphor

symbolizes the lack of a strong/solid identity for the University. As a land-grant

institution, it was "all things to all people," and was in a constant rmaxss of multiplication

or very much like ''a wildly growing garden." The elephant metaphor conjures up size and

a massive hotly, This moaphor characterizes the University by its mass and impressive

size, Indeed, Minnesota has traditionally been one of the largest public universities in the

-26-


nation. The octopus, however, is easily identified with its multi-armed body. The

University was like an octopus with its eigli! -rms embracing different constituencies

simultaneously, or a single body attempting to satisfy the demands of many constituencies

simultaneously. This metaphor is also closely related to "a populist myth," as will be

discussed later. Moreover, the metaphor of a "wildly growing garden" point to the

uncontrolled and continuous expansion of programs (Simsek, 1992).

exemplars Explaining the Old Paradigm:

Five exemplary activities were identified by the respondents as the application of the old

paradigm. These were;

(1) Growing, expanding, diverse programs with much variety;(2) Giving priority to the teaching mission of the university;(3) Large size resulting from low admission standards and an emphasis on quantity;(4) Decentralized, autonomous, collegial decision making granted to units to

develop their own programs; as well as(5) Emphasizing the service mission of the university.

These exemplars defined the dominant strategic behavior of the University until the

early 1980s: diversified program offerings, large size, uncoordinated and decentralized unit

behavior, and emphasis on teaching and service. There was also a high congruence

between the set of metaphors and the set of exemplars used io describe the university.

Underlying this congruence was a strong, solid, and consistent belief system. (Simsek,

1992). Overall, these exemplars reflected the central land grant philosophy, namely, to

educate the sons and the daughters of the citizens of the state..

Myths Characterizing the Old Paradigm;

The myth also reflects this land grunt philosophy or "populism," as evidenced in these

quotes:

-27-


It was highly populous, a belief that the university had to be all things to allpeople, a general world view that we just serve everybody and everybody'sdemands "willy nilly"

It [the university] has risen out of a state with a very populist politicaltradition, so it has characteristics that are reflective of that populism in termsof support by people in the state.

Seventeen out of twenty-four (71%) of the respondents in one way or another

spelled out the populist lone in describing the belief system of the university. It was a

mythical belief that had been carried on since the founding of the university in 1851. One

hundred years later this paradigm exacerbated strains at the University as the enrollment

mushroomed during the 1950s and the 1960s. Respondents defined this "land grant

populism' as:

..the mission of the university is to educate all who live in the state ofMinnesota with the lowest possible cost. Access to the university is anentitlement of citizenship.

(Simsek, 1992).

Anomalies

This study identified six major problems or anomalies that the University was dealing with:

(1) growth and expansion, (2) thinly spread resources, (3) a continual decline in the overall

quality of programs, (4) out-of-balance student-faculty ratios,9 (5) program duplication

across the four public state higher education systems, (6) lack of leadership as a result of

extreme decentralization of decision-making (Simsek, 1992).

These anomalies were further exacerbated by the pressures from new knowledge

and technologies as the information revolution began unfolding in the late 1970s. In

paradigmatic terms, the University was being forced to cope with the initial phases of the

information age.

9This, in turn, created an out of balance student-faculty ratio and out of undergraduate - graduate ratio in favorof the fonner. Thus, teaching load of the faculty was disproportionately increased, leaching more thanresearch became the primary academic resvmsibility, and a heavy emphasis on undergraduate and leachingultimately weakened the research and graduate level studies,

-28-


Littsmial12...BauhaAnomaliesThe University of Minnesota responded to these anomalies by taking seven actions:

(1) Developing a reallocation plan to distribute resources differentially, from low priority to

high priority programs, not proportionately as before; (2) Reducing undergraduate

enrollment by limiting the size of entering classes and raising preparation standards;

(3) Thereby permitting greater attention and service to each undergraduate; (4) Reducing the

complexity of the enterprise by eliminating, merging or reducing programs;

(5, Emphasizing research and publication and increasing graduate enrollment slightly;

(6) Moving towards more centralization and increased coordination of operations through

top-down planning; and (7) Significantly increasing external support through private

fundraising and extramural research grants.

Across the 1980s and into the 90s, these responses by the University of Minnesota

have proven to be typical of an institution coping with the current anomalies. Given the

growing accumulation of anomalies, we assert that these responses also reflect the

beginnings of a new belief system emerging at Minnesota and elsewhere.

To provide a detailed context for the analysis of the new paradigm which is

currently emerging, it is useful to trace in some detail the origins of the American higher

education populist paradigm and its evolution across the twentieth century.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE POPULIST PARADIGM IN AMERICANHIGHER EDUCATION

The Morrill Act of 1862 is a federal initiative that immediately and dramatically changed

America's higher education system.lo It was the dominant ideology guiding the

development of American public universities in subsequent decades. Specifically, the

Morrill Act provided:

10Although our analysis focuses exclusively on public universities, we believe that it is this belief systemmore than any other which shaped all of higher education during the 20th century.

-29- ,--,

DRAFTSimsck & I leydingcr

1. support in every state for at least one college devoted to agriculture and themechanic arts;

2. public lands or land script equal to 30,0(X) acres for each senator andrepresentative under the 1860 apportionment (a total of 17,430,000 acres);

3. the funds, except for 10 percent which could he used initially to buy land forsites, to be set up as an endowment at no less than 5 percent interest;

4. if not used, the funds to he returned to the federal government in five years.(Westmeyer, 1985, p. 61).

Subsequently, similar initiatives continued. F, ,r example, the Hatch Act of 1887

furnished a federal annual appropriation of $15,000 to each state for agricultural stations at

the land-grant institutions; the Second Morrill Act of 1890 provided an additional $15,000

to increase endowment or support of the land-grant colleges; the Nelson Amendment to the

Morrill Acts established an additional $5,(X)0 per year for live years to the original land-

grant funding; The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 authorii.ed the land-grant institutions to olThr

extension work away from the campus and to set up the agricultural and home economics

extension services that Iveame very popular throughout the country; lastly the llankhead-

Jones Act of 1935 appropriated still more funds to Agriculture and Mechanical colleges for

support of agricultural research and co-operative extension work (Westmeyer, 1985, p.

65).

The classical land-grant university model was largely based on the idea of "agrarian

socialism." The university was thought to he "the servant of the state," a machine to

provide education to all citizens of the state. This populist philosophy had its roots in six

developments:

(1). The dominant social ideology: Agrarian socialism was closely linked to

a post-Civil War "progressive movement" that sought to purify life by establishing middli'-

class morality, protecting the weak, and controlling big business (Westmeyer, 1985, p.

74). In some states, like medieval cathedrals, public universities became the symbols of

communal solidarity (e.g., Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, California,

North Carolina, and Texas) (Jencks and Reisman, 1968, p. 173). These universities

30-

DRAFTSlinsek &licyditiger

ideally were designed to he purely public, owned by the representatives of the people of the

state, and expected to respond the needs of all as equally as possible.

(2). Localism: Although federal initiatives did play a major role as noted above,

American public higher education was mostly supported by local taxpayers, especially at

the undergraduate level. Jencks and Reisman argued that "as a result, everyone... had a

college he (sic) could call his own. He had an initial claim on this college, regardless of

how it felt about him. Under this sy,tem nobody was simply expendable, and nobody

could fall through the cracks without being noticed" (Jencks and Reisman, 1968, p. 180).

(3). Social Needs: As soon us the industrial revolution started influencing the

lives of ordinary people, the land-grant colleges were there as both a response and a cause

to the mechanization of agriculture. (liven the importance of the agricultural revolution on

much of America's prosperity, land-grant colleges and their extension services playeda

primary role in this revolution (Jencks and Reisman, 1968, p. 106),

(4). Regional climate: A principle of the "progressive movement." which

reached its peak in Wisconsin in the early 190(1s, was that the university and state

government should work closely. The University of Wisconsin began offering agricultural

courses and programs, which rapidly resulted in increased agricultural productivity.

Wisconsinats came to identify the university as their school, and programs continued to

expand. The Wisconsin initiative was defined by state borders, or the entire state became its

campus. (Westmeyer, 1985. pp. 74-5; Cowley and Williams, 1991, p. 167).

In a second regional development, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin

developed high school certification programs. Other states quickly followed this lead. By

revolutionizing their connections with the K-1 2 segment of the educational system, "the

Midwestern stale universities led in a movement that resulted in the major universities in

this country becoming both more uniform in their requirements and standards and mor,:,

democratic in tlu sense that they intended to serve a much broader population than was

served in curlier limes" (Wesimeyer, 1985, p. 99),

31:1,;

DRAFTSimsek & Heydingcr

(5) From Church to College to University: Also having an impact cn these

developments is the historical fact that early colonial colleges were founded within

churches, to educate clergy. The mission of the college was defined by the mission of

church. Recognizing that the church is perhaps the earliest socio-political institution whose

support primarily came from the community further explains the cornection between

American higher education and community service or populism. Although public

universities were non-sectarian, their service orientation can he traced buck to these colonial

roots.

(6). Institutional prototypes: These changes took hold because of the quick

establishment of institutions which in turn realized success in relatively short order, II For

example, immediately following the enactment of the Morrill Act , Cornell University was

founded in 1865 as the first-land grant university with Cornell's famous statement, "I

would found an institution in which any person canfind instruction in any study." Cornell

was a model for the further development of land-grant movement, with its commitment of

service to the people and breadth of programs, with its emphasis on basic research, with its

openness to all groups including women, and with its non-sectarian governance:

Cornell provided a model for other institutions; Minnesota under its president, WillW. Folwell, in 1869 copied Cornell almost entirely; Wisconsin followed her leadbut developed the service aspect to a special peak."

(Westmeyer, 1985, pp. 66-71)

This set of factors within higher education were the conditions of the "land-grant

philosophy" from which sprang a "populist myth." It created an image (still familiar in the

1980s) of the university as a place where "every high school graduate is accepted, and

everything from ceramics to archeology is taught" (Jencks and Reisman, 1968, p. 180).

With the advancement of the industrial revolution, the model was gradually adapted by

many public universities. Service became an almost inseparable component of the

1The University of Minnesota actually went banknipt after a few years of existence but "reappeared"

following the Civil War,

-32-


university. Training and education of state citizens, technology transfer, agricultural and

industrial stations became generic components of mission statements.

Societal Forces at Work at the End of the 19th Century

Important to this discussion, however, is another set of broad changes -- those occurring at

the end of the 19th century in industrial America but outside the academy. These changes

further reinforced the populist paradigm of American higher education.

The dominant intellectual map: The industrial age of science was defined by

the following properties of scientific knowledge (reported in Lincoln, 1990, pp. 70-72):

1. Reality is simple: The universe is a cumulation of noninteractive, nondiverse,

finely divided, distinctive and separate systems. A phenomenon is the sum of its parts.

2. Hierarchy as a concept of order: Systems can be classified in a hierarchical order

from the simplest to the most complex. "This was reflected in social systems which cast

certain members of society as second-class citizens (such as women and persons of color),

in monarchical systems which supported the 'divine right of kings,' in the periodic table of

chemical elements, and in the common assumptions regarding how the natural world was

taxonomically ordered into increasingly complex organisms."

3. The universe is mechanical: The universe is a clock-like mechanical object, a

machinery. "When put into motion, it simply moves until it winds down or runs out of

energy."

4. Direction is determinate: If the universe is a clock or machine, then its future is

strictly determined. Given a great enough number of mathematical models and enough

computational power, the behavior of any system could ultimately he predicted.

5. The causality of relationships is linear: In a Newtonian-Cartesian universe, if

we know the causal relationships among parts, then we can explain the outcomes.

3-33-


6. Change is quantitative and assembly-like: Systems progress in an assembly-like

manner, with change adding a new part or dimension as time moves the "assembly line"

forward. Rarely is their qualitative change or discontinuous redefinition.

7. Objectivity is not only possible but essential: In a Cartesian universe, the ways of

knowing are explained in terms of "the use of reasoning as a way of coming to

understanding, and the distancing of the observer from the thing to he observed."

These implicit properties of intellectuaUeognitive endeavors were an important

component of the industrial revolution and had an impact on the evolution of higher

education structures, just as they did on all other types of institutions and organizations.

From religious order to pedagogy --- from organizations to economic relations, the

establishment of the industrial scientific paradigm was both descriptive of its time and

prescriptive in the creation of further realities.

Structural configuration of organizations: The scientific or positivist

paradigm laid out above created concepts such as "chain of command, subordinate, unity of

command, authority, line officers, staff officer, tight ship, troops, span of control, and

standard operations" (Lincoln, 1990, p. 79). Many scholars developed important

organizational theories using the properties of the positivist paradigm, viewing

organizations as machines or systems. (Morgan, 1986).

When populism was in a significant growth period at the turn of the twentieth

century, the positivist organization paradigm was also in a momentous growth period. The

most typical metaphor dominating organizational science was the factory. The metaphor

was quickly adapted to educational institutions.

This metaphor of factory carries important implications for the populist paradigm

and how we judge our success. First, production is evaluated by quantity. The larger the

output, the more productive the factory. Second, structure is most efficient if it is

organized in a factory manner. Thus, division of labor, separate units, finely distributed

assignments, supervision of work, hierarchic control and communication, specialization,

-:14-r

DRAFTSirnsek & Heydinger

span of control, and many other classical organization and management assumptions were

applied to schools and universities. Although the twentieth century "academic revolution"

(Jencks and Reisman, 1968) provided and strengthened the collegial model of governance,

the underlying "factory" structure has remained more or less intact.

Industrial revolution and special interests: In large measure the industrial

society was defined by structural elements larger than the individual. Individuals were too

little and too powerless against the shock waves of early laissez-faire capitalism. This was

most noticeable in Europe where Durkheim described the end result as "sczhofrania," while

Marx saw solution in class consciousness and conflict. Against the sins of capitalism, the

only protection was to be identified with a group, class, or community. Protection was

afforded by "collective action," "unionism," and "self-interest groups.',12 By the late

nineteenth century, relatively unified social establishments had disintegrated into "special-

interest" groups (Jencks and Reisman, 1968, p. 3).

In 19th century America, the protection of the powerless, the weak, and the poor

against the devastating effects of early capitalism became the base of a progressive social

movement. Yet 19th century America was composed of a collection of geographically,

socially, culturally, ethnically and religiously distant, local establishments. The country

was divided between Irish and Yankee, Baptist and Episcopalian. North and South,

country and ciiy (Jencks and Reisman, 1968, p. 12).

Nineteenth century Americans grouped themselves by occupation, social class,religion, sex, locality, and ethnic background, among others. As the century woreon almost all these groups felt impelled to set up their own colleges, both toperpetuate their distinctive subculture and to give it legitimacy in the larger society.By 1900 there were special colleges for Baptists and Catholics, for men andwomen, for whites and blacks, for rich and not-so-rich. for North and South, forsmall town and big city, for adolescents and adults, for engineers and teachers.

(Jencks and Reisman, 1968, p. 2-3)

1211 is interesting to note that socialism as a political ideology was born with the industrial revolution andmay have perhaps ended with it. This point causes one to pause, even if only momentarily, on the future ofthe higher education paradigm.

..3 5..3

DRAFTSimsck & Ileydinger

Jencks and Reisman classified these institutions as "special-interest" colleges. Even

today colleges and universities often deliberately exclude students from outside their state

or region; larger state universities charge out of state students differential tuition rates.

Populism, as defined in American higher education, established roots in the soil of

these larger circumstances.

Chaos and crisis: The paradigm perspective tells us that the revolutionary period

is threatening, irrational, and chaotic. For a paradigm shift to occur, old patterns of

thinking must be abandoned, and the link between past and present must be severed.

Chaos is a precondition for a discontinuous change from the old to new realities. In most

cases, as Kuhn argues, paradigm builders are initially outsiders, relatively young, small

entrepreneurs, and risk-takers. They are not nearly as bound by the social conditions and

they more easily see alternative realities. Newcomers, entrepreneurs, risk-takers are

important in building alternative paradigms.

America in the mid-nineteenth century had all these properties of a paradigm shift:

By the second quarter of the nineteenth century the character of American societyhad begun to undergo a radical tran.sformation. The break with England, theformation of a national government, the disestablishment of state churches, and theopening of lands across the Appalachians had all gradually undermined theestablished institutions and traditions of colonial society... The eclipse ofestablished colonial hierarchies after 1828 created a vacuum which almost everyonewas eager to fill, but nobody succeeded. The rest of the nineteenth century thereforesaw a continuous struggle for power and legitimacy between the many subculturesthat flourished in the rapidly growing nation.

Once it became clear that no single group of men (sic) had the power toshape society as a whole, many preferred to strike out on their own rather than tryto climb the long ladder into existing institutions" [emphases added] (Jencks andReisman, 1968, p. 2).

Out of this complex of factors following the Civil War emerged the land-grant

philosophy that we have termed the populist paradigm.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE POPULIST PARADIGM

During most of the twentieth century the populist paradigm dominated the strategic

behavior of higher education institutions, particularly public ones. Benchmarks were cast in

-36-

DRAFTSimsek & l leydinger

terms of: (1) Variety, and many program offerings; (2) emphasizing the teaching mission;

(3) low standards or guaranteed admission emphasizing size of the entering class; (4)

emphasizing the service mission of the university. These dominant strategic behaviors

were tacitly included in the populist ideology and have been salient throughout the history

of these institutions.

Some higher education sociologists describe the period before the Second World

War as the "ivory tower" period. We see it somewhat differently. For example:

Opportunities for higher education, once available mainly to a narrowly basedgroup of young persons, were opened to a wider segment of the population by theland-grant movement after the Civil War...In 1879, 52,000 undergraduate studentswere enrolled in the nation's colleges. Within a decade, enrollment doubled andafter another 50 years, by 1930, it had passed the one million mark

(The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1975, p. 26).

Compared with its counterparts in Europe and elsewhere, no other public higher

education system was more responsive and open to social, economic, and political needs of

the country than the American land-grant movement.

Figure 4 about here

Between the 1870s and the first quarter of the twentieth century, the American

economic base moved from agriculture to industrial production, from rural to urban

centers, and so did the mission of the land-grant institutions move from a nearly exclusive

focus on agricultural service and extension to add an "industrial" focus. "About 1875 the

number of Americans employed in agriculture fell for the first time below the number

engaged in non-agricultural pursuits" (Cowley and Williams, 1991, p. 162), and "as the

industrial system matured in this country, higher education took on responsibility for

preparing students for roles that covered a spectrum from applied engineering and

agriculture to psychologically-based personnel services" (Duryea, 1981, p. 24). .

DRAM'Stinsek & Ileydinger

This range of social, economic and political developments carried the nation into the

1940s without altering the fundamental premises of the populist paradigm. The Second

World War was a most significant period for American higher education, especially for

land-grant and other public institutions. American involvement in the war created an urgent

need for sophisticated scientific manpower and knowledge development. Academics

quickly responded with their scholarly expertise, and they produced spectacular results. At

the same time, the office of Scientific Research and Development decided not to set up its

own research facilities, but instead to contract with universities (as well as with industry)

for such activity. After the war, these wartime arrangements were modified and

institutionalized as federal granting R&D agencies. This development established a

powerful set of incentives for individual faculty and thus their disciplinary associations.

Coupled with the G.I. Bill, higher education became a tremendous growth industry

(Cowley and Williams, 1991, pp. 183, 190; The Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching, 1975, p. 33; Henry, 1975, p. 123; Jencks and Reisman, 1968,

p. 14; Boyer, 1990, p. 10; Bok, 1990, p. 2). As a result, the emphasis in mission

continued to shift from agriculture to industrial service, from teaching to research and

development. Yet it did so without significantly altering the underlying myths of populism.

This was possible because choices were not necesscry; growth and change could he

accommodated by addition.

During this era of growth an important governance change also occurred, as

explained by Jencks and Reisman. The "academic revolution" led to significant increases

in academic freedom and the collegial model of organizational decision-making. Faculty

earned a considerable amount of power and authority to make decisions at departmental,

college, and even central levels.

It is generally agreed that institutions of higher learning are best understood ascollections of fundamental autonomous units rather than in terms of a centralauthority, or conception of a whole, to which they are subordinate. Departmentswere designed to avoid curricular chaos and shift power from the president to thefaculty

-38-J"t)

DRAFTSimsek & lleydingcr

(E. Coleman, 1981; reported in Alpert, 1985, p. 246).

With these significant changes to the populist paradigm, Simsek and Louis (1991)

have described the paradigm after the World War II as "entrepreneurial populism."

In concluding this analysis, we make three summary points:

(1) The basic framework for American higher education and its philosophical

underpinnings was developed in the late nineteenth century. This was perhaps the most

chaotic period in the American higher education industry with an extremely high mortality

rate for new institutions. Chaos led to order, and a populist paradigm emerged out of this

tumultuous period. This paradigm continued to "work," given the significant revisions

added to it by the events surrounding World War 11.

Following WW II we might expect to see a new paradigm emerge. The basic tenets

of the populist paradigm, however, remained intact, even though 11w 11.`Xl thirty years were

the period of higher education's most phenomenal growth.

During the growth period of the 1950s and 1960s, the increasingly deconinill /easystem of governance was highly adaptive. Change took place by enlarging theinstitution, keeping the old structure intact and adding new academie mills under thestimulus of readily available federal research funds and the rapid growth in si talentenrollments. Academic units were added to accommodate new research activlties,developed by outstanding faculty members with entrepreneurial instincts; in thesame time, many existing departments also grew substantially Facithy membersbecame entrepreneurs" [emphases added]

(Alpert, 1985, 11. 248),

(2). The populist higher education paradigm has served the United States very well;

for it is an industrial paradigm, consistent with western society's broader, organiMig

paradigm. It is not accident that the paradigm was founded after the Civil War as the

people of this country were establishing a modern nation. And, this philosophy remained

intact for nearly one-hundred years. For example, in 1947 the Truman Commission on

higher education reemphasized these underlying tenets:

The American people should set as their ultimate goal, an educational system inwhich at no level-high school, college, graduate school, or professional school-willa qualified individual in any pan of the country encounter an insuperable economicharrier to the attainment of the kind of education suited to his aptitudes and interests

(reported in Cowley and Williams, 1991, p. 189).

- 39-4 1`)

DRAFTSimsek & Ilcydinger

(3). The populist paradigm has continued to thrive because the social and economic

circumstances have always been supportive of its fundamentals tenets. Our country's

economic and social prosperity created an image that "the American financing capacity is

infinite," and "an infinite amount of i ;mincing will he available to enable collegiate

institutions to provide virtually any service" lemphases added] (Mayhew, Ford and

Hubbard, 1990, p. 19). These same authors :so note that "the earlier, generally accepted

synthesis of higher learning us essentially an intellectual undertaking gave way, at least in

part, to the notion that colleges and universities were essentially institutions that provided

social services and were obligated to provide whatever kinds of service anyone wanted'

[emphasis added] (p. 12).

However, by the mid-1970s and into the early 1980s, the entrepreneurial-populist

paradigm began showing signs of significant change. Not surprisingly, this occurred at the

time that the U.S. industrial system was also under the most stress, and universities began

a period of significant change and reorientation.

THE PARADIGM OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TIIE 1990S

From their work ut the University of Minnesota, Simsek and Louis (1991) concluded that

there was not u radically different paradigm emerging at the University. Rather it was more

closely tied to the old belief system, populism. The institution has been in the process of

reversing the swing of the populist paradigm but working within it. Although still working

well within the boundaries of populism, the free- wheeling entrepreneutialism of the 1950s

and 1960s is being replaced by managed populism. We believe that managed populism

will survive until some strong shocks lead to discontinuities as happened in the 1860s and

1870s. Because the populist paradigm is so fundamental to American higher education, it

will take u "revolution" --- in paradigmatic terms to change it. Yet we think the signs of

this coming revolution are most evident, John Galbraith comments on today's conditions

when he says, "Modern higher education has extensively accommodated to the needs of

-40-

DRAFTSiinsek & Ileydinger

the industrial system," but "the 'glory days' of the postwar period will not reappear in the

near future" (Althach, 1981, p. 236). We believe that managed populism is the third ma

anylphase of the populist paradigm.

The Managed Populism

Before looking at the future in some detail, we briefly characterize managed populism; for it

continues to be the hack drop for contemporary American higher education.

(I). Institutional size and complexity: Since the early 1980s, we have

observed a great deal of efforts on the part of institutions to reduce the size of enterprise

into a more manageable one. Many argue that these efforts are due to shrinking state and

federal monies. "From 1967 to 1987 the share of GNP that Washington devotes to research

and development (R&D) dropped from 2.1 to 1.3 percent... For example, grants for

research facilities have dropped by a staggering 95 percent since the 1960s, while the

number of federal fellowships and traineeships has dipped by more than 25 percent" (Bok,

1990, p. 13-14). Throughout the 1970s and the early 1980s, number of programs and

units closed or merged with another proportionately increased (Mayhew, Ford and

Hubbard, 1990, p. 4-5). However, shrinking resources have only been part of the cause.

Many institutions also recognize that this is an opportunity to reverse the problems of

quality, cost, accountability, and an impersonal campus climate brought on by the populist

growth years.

(2), Upgrading quality: As Mayhew, Ford and Hubbard (1990) argue, "a

major component of the history of American higher education since 1940 is a chronicle of

responding effectively to a series of serious, but quite different, challenges rooted in

demographics, economics, changing societal values and priorities, and now quality"

[emphasis added) (p. 4-5). They go on to support our hypothesis that the entrepreneurial-

populist years of American higher education was the main cause of severe quality

deterioration:

A 01

-4 I- "


During the 19hOs and 1970s, grades were inflated, requirements were generalizedand diffused, validating tests were abandoned, and semesters were shortened whileeducational lenders concentrated their energies on maintaining whatever portion ofsociety's resources they had grown accustomed to receiving

(Mayhew, lord and Hubbard, 1990, pp. 10, 123-124).

At all levels, attempts to enhance the quality have been at the top of many

institutions' agendas. Even administrative practices are undergoing scrutiny with the

significant recent interest in Total Quality Management. These efforts are reversing the

emphasis on quantity during the years of the populist myth.

(3). Cost and accountability: The cost of higher education has been one of

the top issues on the public agenda since the early 1980s. Institutions have been struggling

to reduce cost with painful internal reorganization and redistribution of resources. Cost

reduction, efficiency and accountability will continue to be a priority for many institutions

in the 1990s until the industry finds new organizational schema that are consistent with the

emerging paradigm.

(4). Increasing centralizatioa: This issue may he the most complex.

Currently the system is experiencing decentralization in the form of privatization.

However, more central direction at the institutional level including rules and regulations that

al., imposed on higher education by both states and the federal government have shown a

steady increase and will likely continue until these decision-makers feel that higher

education is effectively addressing its challenges. The 1992 higher education

reauthorization is a poignant example of this.

At the institutional level Alpert foresaw this problem when he argued ''iat "the

decentralization that was highly adaptive during a period of expansion [1950s and 1960s)

becomes maladaptive in times of retrenchment. To reduce or eliminate programs in times of

retrenchment is far more difficult than to add them in times of growth" (Alpert, 1985, p.

249). At the state level, according to Kerr and Gadc, "in 1980, only one state lacked a

mechanism for coordination of all higher oducation within the state, including the private

sector; forty years earlier, only one state had such a mechanism" (Kerr and (lade, 1981, p.

-42-


120), As in the case of national health care, higher education has already experienced more

centralization as policy makers wrestle with their own concerns about quality and cost. For

instance,from his rich comparative perspective Burton Clark eloquently argued over ten

years ago:

The trend toward central political and bureaucratic coordination is running strong...In fact, if our current momentum toward bureaucratic centralism is maintained, firstat the state level and then at the national, we may see the days when we catch upwith our friends abroad [some European systems such as Sweden, France, andItaly] or even pass them as they travel in the direction of decentralization

(Clark, 1981, p. 292).

(5). Access: The notion that "every high school graduate is guaranteed a college

education" we believe is changing. Certainly in the Minnesota legislature more elected

officials are willing to question "out loud" whether we have too much higher education.

Most populist, land-grant institutions have become more selective in the past decade. Yet

this strain of serving all runs deep in American society. As Mingle has pointed out, the

trade-off between access and quality to he provided in light of diminishing resources will

be the issue dominating the 1990s.13..

FROM ANOMALIES TO CRISIS: SOME EVIDENCE

Our analysis is built on an assertion that the current set of anomalies vis-a-vis the dominant

paradigm of managed populism is so great that in the near future there will be some

significant shifts in our dominant belief system about higher education. To build the case

for this assertion, we examine the anomalies both within the academy and external to it.

Then, we demonstrate how our current paradigm is in the midst of an emerging "crisis," as

paradigm theory terms it.

Anomalies within the academy, First, there is a growing perception that the

quality of teaching has declined. Whether the decline is real or only perceived is moot; the

I3Persoital conversation with I 4, Panes F.xcetitiVC Director, State Iiigher Executive(Hlicers.

443-

DRAFTSimsrk & Heydinger

feeling exists that it has slipped. Second, the "publish or perish" syndrome emanating

from the research model has resulted in a growing proportion of low quality and "often

inconsequential material, rather than the protracted pursuit necessary for a major intellectual

contribution" in almost all disciplines (Mayhew, Ford and Hubbard, 1990, p. 131). Third,

the primacy of the disciplinary affiliation has seriously weakened the faculty's attachment to

their institutions. This has come about because of the importance of peer judgments in the

awarding of research contracts and the dominance of research measures to determine

institutional advancement. Fourth, across the hoard application of research model norms

has been ill-suited to many institutions of higher education. Their faculty have neither the

background, nor does the institution have the infrastructure to support sophisticated

scholarly work. As a result, institutional effectiveness and efficiency have been

jeopardized. Fifth, the broad emphasis on research productivity has created an unsatisfying

climate for many professors who are good teachers, but who have less interest in research.

Thus, the reward and compensation structure dominated by the research model has

penalized a significant number of academics that many stakeholders of higher education

would judge as productive.

Even the most respected scholars and institutions are questioning the dominance of

the research or current paradigm. Boyer has called for, "a more inclusive view of what it

means to he a scholar -- a recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, through

synthesis, through practice, and through teaching." He proposes that we differentiate our

measures of productivity by expanding our definition of scholarship to include: the

scholarship of discovery (research), the scholarship of integration (multi- disciplinary

work), the scholarship of application (service), and the scholarship of teaching. Mingle

(1992), and Baldwin (1985) suggest the need for differentiating between roles, as an

approach for breaking the dominance of the research paradigm. Many strong research

institutions (e..g, Michigan, Syracuse, Campus Compact ) have placed improved teaching

at the top cif their institutional agenda.

-44-4

DRAFTSiinsek & Ileytlinger

Anomalies External to the Academy, There is every reason to believe that

funding will he tighter during the next two decades than at any period since the Depression.

Currently two-thirds of the state governments are running u deficit, Unfortunately higher

education is not near the lop of most slate's funding agenda, nor is it likely to move-up in

the immediate future. When looking hack than the year 2001, an increasing number of

people are now predicting that the period 1990-92 will be viewed historically as the "golden

years" of the 90s. As the financial strain continues to grow, legislators and other stake

holders will increasingly demand evidence that their sizable investments are being used as

effectively and efficiently as possible.

In particular "provider" driven organizations are under the most serious siege

(Dolence and Norris, 1992). Health care, legal work and education are all being

questioned by their "customers." No longer will the patient, client, or student sit idly by

while the providers define what is needed for them.

Quality is becoming the coin of the realm in all products and services, and with each

passing day the "customer" is getting more adamant about it. In previous eras the public

wu.s less informed about the nature of higher education. A much smaller portion of the

population had ever experienced any post-high school education. The prevalent attitude is

captured by a Minnesota farmer who said to his niece, the first family member to attend

college, "We don't know what you're studying at that university, but we sure arc proud of

you!" In the past, post-secondary education guaranteed a job; it guaranteed status; and it

was somewhat shrouded in mystery.

All of these "anomalies" point toward change. But the question still remains. "How

imminent is the change'?" We feel that change is upon us, and we return in the next section

to the theoretical work on paradigm development to build this case.

4 (;

-45-

DRAFTShnsck & Ileydinger

Chaos. Crisis and Conflict Lead Jo Selection of a New Paradigm

Paradigm theory maintains that crisis is a necessary component of discontinuous change. It

is during this time of discontinuities that potential new paradigms are developed; many fail;

and some thrive. Theorists have shown that we are in a crisis period when a number of the

following conditions exist. To buttress our argument we include some observations about

the current state of higher education.

(1). Extensive argumentatiun about the basics and principles of seeing and doing

things (Jonsson and Lundin, 1977; Simsek and Louis, 1991; Louis and Simsek, 1991)

Observation: Consider the on-going debates about "political correctness," multi-

culturalism, and the spate of recent books debating the philosophical underpinnings of the

American university .

(2). Extensive reports, observations and increasing amount of data on failures of

the systern.(Ionsson and Lundin, 1977; Louis and Simsek, 1991).

Observation: Consider the extensive coverage in the popular press focusing on the

shortcomings of American higher education. Legislative staff in Minnesota completed a

report highly critical of the completion rate of community college students; SIIEEO just

completed a study of faculty productivity that is getting significant attention by both the

higher education press and the national press.

(3). Psychological dissatisfaction and confusion on the part of practitioners using

the elements of paradigm in their daily practices (Sterman, 1985; Simsek and Louis, 1991)

Observation: Consider the conflicting messages which faculty are receiving today about the

priority of teaching versu v research. It is not difficult to find accounts of low morale

amongst faculty.

(4). A great deal of performance deterioration in the system that hreaks down the

established negotiated political order among the interest groups in the system. (Tushman

and komanelli, 1985; Jonsson and Lunch n, 1977)

4''

-46-

DRAFTSintsek & lleydInger

Observation: Consider the increasingly aggressive stance which legislatures are taking with

regard to teaching loads. Studies have been mandated; legislation has been introduced

(5). An increased search for alternative ways of doing things, proliferation of

alternative proposals, action guidelines and cognitive approaches to fix and resolve the

anomalies (Simsek and Louis, 1991; Sterman, 1985; Kuhn, 1970)

Observation: Consider the many innovations during the 1980s to serve adults; also the

founding of alternative models such as National Technological University (NTU).

(6). Relatively minor events which under normal conditions would be handled

easily, trigger a domino effect leading to other more serious events and problems (Simsek,

1992).

Observation: Consider that in Minnesota the questions of overruns on remodeling the

president's house led to an examination of the entire financial structure of the University; or

how indirect cost recovery questions can lead to a compete reexamination of the research

enterprise.

(7). Increasing dynamism in the industry as the birth rate of new institutions and

death rate of existing ones increase proportionately. As anomalies emerge, it creates an

opportunity for others to enter the system.

Observation: Consider the establishment of the cable TV Mind Extension University, the

for-profit Keller Graduate School of Business, or the University of Phoenix with its

campuses throughout the West and its innovative curriculum development approach.

From our contemporary vantage point it is difficult to surmise if at any point in

history we could generate a list such as the above. However, we feel strongly that when

you put together these indicators of paradigm crisis with the list of anomalies noted earlier

and then couple all of this to the significant changes underway throughout society, the MSC

is strong if not irrefutable that a shift in paradigms iii the near future is inevitable".

"As an aside, one of our most contemporaneous events, the 1092 presidential election reveals theseriousness ()I' the crisis at hand. Willi only a few (lays to go betbre the election, voters' preferences sewn to

-47-4 L)

DRAFTSimsek & Ileydinger

If that is the case, what can we say about the emerging paradigm? The final section

of this paper proposes an approach for addressing this question.

SHAPING THE EMERGING PARADIGM

Although it is intuitively obvious, it is always worth repeating: The future is unpredictable!

At best, our crystal ball can give us only a fuzzy glimpse of the years to come. Also, only

in retrospect can you define a new paradigm. The process of paradigm development,

evaluation, and selection is a messy and inexact process, not unlike any other ruthless

Darwinian survival of the fittest.

Thus, we think it is both shortsighted and ineffective to speculate on future

paradigms. Instead, we propose a three-step framework which can be utilized by

individuals, institutions, or policy makers as they work to "create higher education's

future." Utilizing this framework will increase the likelihood that an institution emerges

from this period of chaos and conflict with an institutional plan that works with and not

against the emergent paradigm.

1st: Recognize the larger forces at work and h_uild on thern. A number of

broad changes are underway which can be easily overlooked because they are so large and

amorphous. They occur on a number of fronts.

shifts in the intellectual fronts. The structure of knowledge is changing, as

pointed out by Scwartz and Ogilvy (1979) in Lincoln (1985). Today:

1. Reality is complex. Variation, diversity and interactivity arc inherent

characteristics of all phenomena and systems with."....each system

develop(ing) properties which are unique to the system." (Lincoln, 1990, p.69)

swing wildly. 'lite "Perot factor stands like a beacon reinitalimt us that people are out only seeking changebut they recongize that there is something fundamentally diflui cat happening in our country........somethingthat traditional politicians arc not prepared to address.

-48-4 9

DRAFTShnsek & Ileydinger

2. Heterarclw is order. Systems are not hierarchical and pyramidal but heterarchical

in which mutual constraints, influences and movements are unpredictable.

3. The universe is holographic The universe cannot be understood mechanically by

taking apart components and reassembling them in reverse order. Everything is

interconnected with each part containing information about the whole.

4. The direction is indeterminate Possibilities can be known, but precise outcomes

cannot be predicted; "....ambiguity about the future is a condition of nature."

(Lincoln, 1990, p,71)

5. Relationships are nonlinear and mutually causal Rather than A causing B,

perhaps A and B interact in such a way that they evolve and change together.

6. Change is morphogimetje with "a sense of order emerging from disorder."

Systems are diverse, open, complex, mutually causal, and indeterminate leading

to qualitative rather than quantitative changes, (Lincoln, 1990, p.71)

7. Observers arc participants with perspective. The observer is not isolated or

distant from the observed. There is no such thing as objectivity, but there is

perspective. "Perspective connotes a view at a distance from a particular focus.

Where we look from affects what we see. No single discipline ever gives a

complete picture. A whole picture is an image generated morhogenctically from

multiple perspectives" (Lincoln, 1990, p. 72).

Although these shifts may seem more related to a theory of knowledge, these shifts

in the "knowledge industry" are having a noticeable affect on the functioning of

universities. For example, one of the significant challenges facing academic programs is

how to promote and reward interdisciplinary work. It is not coincidental that these

fundamental shifts are occurring in knowledge during the same period that society is also

undergoing a significant shift. Similar phenomena occurred during the Industrial

Revolution, from which emerged the populist paradigm.

n'!)

-49-

DRAFTSimsek & Ifeydinger

Shifts in the configurathan of organizations. Changes in the organization

of knowledge coupled with the broad societal changes prompted by the "information age"

are having an impact on the structure, mission, configuration, and adaptation patterns of

our organizations. There are direct parallels between the emerging properties of knowledge

as we noted above with the new theories and practices in organizational behavior.

The late 1970s and the early 1980s was a dynamic period for organization theory.

Called the postpositivist paradigm, organizational scientists incorporated unorthodox

theories into their work using concepts such us culture, chaos, holography, flux [Morgan,

1986], garbage can, loose coupling, etc. They also began employing more qualitative

methods for data collection rather than the dominant quantitative method used in the

previous two decades, Indeterminacy, the inability to predict the future with precision,

coupled with the inadequacy of linear and sequential decision-making, led to the

development and popularization of strategic planning with its penchant for environmental

scanning, scenario development and issues management. (Lincoln, 1990, p. 80).

Radical organizational practices have become much more commonplace. For

example, Toff ler gives numerous examples or replacing classical organizational structures,

the "cubbyhole" organizations, with new "flex organizations" due to the change in

information technologies (Toff ler, 1990, 165-178). Similar observations were made by

Naisbitt and Ahurdene in their 1985 study on organizations, "Reinventing the

Corporation." Peters and Waterman's influential hook, In Search of Excellence, reported

on organizational innovations taking place in a number of U.S. corporations. In his

follow-up hook, "Thriving on Chaos," Peters described some radical applications of new

organizational practices as well us prescribing some general models. Although these

practices have not yet significantly impacted higher education institutions, they will

undoubtedly have some impact on higher education structure, as parallel changes did in the

latter part of the 19th century.

-50- 5


Shifts in the fundamental social. economic and political unit. As noted

earlier, 19th century capitalism devalued the individual. It was largely defined by the

"struggle of collecteds." Labor unions have been a typical example of the "collecteds"

through which individual rewards and benefits were strictly tied to collective interests,

rewards and benefits (Toffler, 1990; Naisbitt and Aburdene, 1990).

The information revolution is having a profound influence as it changes society in

to an endless array of individual units. Naisbitt and Aburdene call this the "demise of the

collective." The individual is the basic unit in the information society, from economy to

politics to culture to education (Toffler, 1990, pp. 204-13; Naisbitt and Aburdene, 1990,

pp. 298-310). We are learning to appreciate individual creativity rather than group

uniformity; we are learning to understand individual perspective as opposed to the

integrated social mind; and we are developing more individualized rewards and benefits.

The implications of these emerging patterns on traditional pedagogical philosophies are

most significant.

Our earlier examination of the evolution of higher education's paradigm in the

twentieth century brings home one point with dramatic clarity. Forces external to the

academy have been the driving force behind nearly all significant change in higher

education. Thus, there is no doubt in our minds that the next higher education paradigm

will reflect these broad societal developments.15 Attempts by higher education to reverse

"A Fuzzy Picture of the Emerging Paratillgrm Why a fuzzy picture? As Schwartz and Ogilvy(1979) argued "in complex systems possibilities can be known, but precise outcomes cannot he predicted"(reported in Lincoln, 1990, p. 71). The ideas that we will present further below point out a general directionto which the coming paradigm of higher education may lead. However, in what precise format these patternswill emerge, that is we don't know. Thus, we are proposing a number of possible conditions, not tinaccurate future state. As chaos theorists argue, randomness and chance are always the integral part ofsystems in revolution. Our analysis in this paper leads us to explore following general dimensions of theemergent paradigm of the American higher education:

a. The sociological paradigm of the higher learning institutions will base on service to individual(with an emphasis on individual as indirectly relating to public) as opposed to service to public (with anemphasis on public interests and benetils as indirectly relating to individual).

h. The overall patterns of the organizational paradigm of higher education institutions will beconsistent with the outcomes of the emerging information revolution, changing intellectual-scientific baseof organization and management sciences as well as others, e.g. basic activity as being the production ofknowledge and processing ()I' information; highest value to creativity and individual contribution to the

;r-51-

ersT CT/ AIIP!


these changes is akin to an individual standing in the middle of railroad track and trying to

stop a locomotive. You can't flag this one down, nor can you throw the switch to reroute

it. The best we can do, is to jump on and take the ride. We can, however, decide what

role we want to play while on the train.

2nd: Utilize Five Key Strategies"

To build on these emerging characteristics, five key strategius, are u.. 1111. They incorporate

the current concerns expressed by most higher education stakeholders and build on the

broad shifts described above.

Focus on the customer. Higher education institutions have many stakeholders;

all of them have an interest in what the institution does and the quality of the services it

delivers. However in each "transaction" there is only one primary customer. Primary

customers benefit directly from what we do and are in the best position to judge the quality

of the institution's work. Identifying customers specifically, staying in touch with them,

and adapting to meet their changing needs is essential. Serving the primary customer

exceptionally well will be required performance for the next paradigm.

Be Specific and Demanding About Onalitv. Quality is simply defined as

meting or exceeding the expectations of those who_are served. For centuries "quality" has

been a much debated word in higher education. Well known higher education scholars

have noted the elusiveness of a definition for quality and one noted set of authors even

institution; a possible differentiation of teaching, research and service functions among the publicinstitutions; more integrated in terms of being more interdisciplinary, interprofessional, and moreinterdepartmental (Alpert, 1985, p. 267).

c. To us, the American higher education has a great potential to successfully complete a paradigmtransformation compared to other systems elsewhere in the world. "1 ligher education...is furlong the mostcompetitive enterprises in America. More than 3,000 separate colleges and universities are perpetuallyvying with one another for students, faculty, and resources. This constant rivalry generates powerful forcesthat make universities pay attention to the desires and priorities of many groups and constituents in theoutside world" (fink, 1990. p. 42). These patterns of competitiveness and constant rivalry are importantforces in building and reshaping alternative realities, what we called the paradigms.

I6This section was heavily influenced by the work of Peter Hutchinson from the Public Strategies Group,Inc. and a project which R. Ileydinger is working on at the University of Minnesota Crookston withIlutehinson. 'Hie authors thank both I lutchinson and the Crookston campus for their contributions.

-52- rrrel. ArAILABIE

DRAFTSims& & 1 leydinger

concluded that "we know it in our bones." We must recognize that in today's world

stakeholders will not continue to make sizeable investments in an institution unless it can

demonstrate quality.

Quality begins by carefully assessing the needs of those to be served. The

curriculum and other services are designed around these needs. Yet meeting the needs of

those we serve is not a simple pandering to be the most popular. Instead, we must look to

the long terms expectations and needs of our customers.

For example, in a first-year English composition course quality standards are Rol

determined solely by the expectations of first-year students. Employers, alumni, and

current advanced level students have an informed perspective about the role of first-year

composition. These stakeholders must assist in quality definition and assessment.

Moreover, these individuals through direct feedback to first-year students can reinforce the

importance of composition as an essential component of baccalaureate education.

Build from Collaboration. More than any time in the past, collaboration is an

essential strategy in responding to the changes which are upon us. It offers ways to increase

quality substantially without incurring "full costs." For example, visiting scholars have long been

a collaborative strategy utilized by higher education. Today's telecommunications permit us "to

bring in the world," thereby leveraging costs so that institution gets the greatest value for each

dollar. Buying, selling and developing programs jointly may he a foreign concept to today's

institutions, but it is happening with increasing regularity and will he commonplace in the

emerging paradigm. Since the exclusive objective is providing customers with the best value for

the resources expended, collaboration should be viewed as a sign of quality, not weakness.

Utilize Technology to its Fullest. Like collaboration, technology is another

means by which the ratio of value to cost can he increased.. Technology allows the

delivery of current services more efficiently or to deliver more services and more value

within the limitations of current resources. The future paradigm will force us to ask

repeatedly: Does technology offer us a tool for doing something smarter or better'?

r- , -53-L..:


Rggggnize the Inherent Power of Accountability Measures.

Accountability to customers is more powerful than accountability to supervisors. The more

powerful customers UM, the more powerful accountability. Accountability mechanisms

may he arrayed along a continuum fwirn those with the fewest direct consequences to those

with the most. If accountability mechanisms are developed which empower the customer to

huvekdirect influence on departmental resources, the restructuring necessary to respond to

the conditions of the emerging paradig, nas the highest likelihood of occurring.

These five strategies are offered as guide posts for addressing the period of crisis

which is upon us as well as the emerging new paradigm. Next we turn t, the levers of

change which are most likely to produce results that are consistent with the emerging

paradigm.

3rd: Work on Characteristics with the Most Salience for the Emerging

Paradigm

Each institution must assess which ''characteristics" of its current operation, if redefined,

have the most potential for ushering in significant change, . Selection of the characteristics

or activities for redefinition should build on the conditions of the emerging paradigm and

not work against it.

Although each institution is different, we propose eight characteristics which in

most higher education organizations would need reexamination and redefinition. Like the

key strategies, these characteristics focus attention on some of the critical demands of the

emerging paradigm. Stated another way, if an institution redefined this set of

characteristics using the five strategies outlined above, we are confident that the result

would he a new institutional paradigm that is well positioned for both success today and in

the future,

-54- 5:.;


High school and collegeeasing the transition

In a competitive economic climate where customer-driven service is the corporate standard,

it is difficult to excuse an enterprise as large and important as higher education for knowing

so little about its customers. IMAGINE a college that attempts to ease the transition to

higher education by offering high school students enrollment in appropriate college courses

and by forging productive relationships with high school teachers and administrators.

Curriculum restructuring redefining and streamlining

Currently at most colleges and universities, approximately one-fourth of the curriculum

consumes three-fourths of the instructional budget. IMAGINE a curriculum with the direct

involvement of employers and alumni in evaluating course content and a curriculum which

is problem oriented with required active learning.

Class size and educational effectivenessexploring alternatives

Today most institutions operate on the unproven educational assumption that smaller

classes yield better educational outcomes, while at the same time we ignore the point that

class size may be the single most important determinant of instructional cost. IMAGINE an

institution that continuously monitors and analyzes the breadth and quality of the

curriculum and measures educational outcomes on a cost/benefit basis.

The informal curriculumsupport that counts

The majority of program planning effort now goes into formal academic course work, with

proportionately little attention paid to providing students with "life coping" skills, career

counseling, and post-graduate planning assistance. IMAGINE an effective advising and

career development system that supports students from their first day on campus and

continues throughout their enrollment, helping them discover their true interests, assess

their skills, and chart their post-graduate course.

-55- 5 C,


Education and workbuilding new connections

Today graduates are losing ground in the employment market because there is little if any

meaningful intersection between their undergraduate education and later employment. At

lie same time, employers increasingly are UNwilling to hire college-educated individuals

who lack on-the-job experience. IMAGINE an undergraduate curriculum that encourages

and provides opportunities for students to gain essential work experience through co-op

arrangements, internships, etc., while it offers employers the free service of screening

prospective employees.

Administrative servicesvaluing clients

Historically, administrative services in colleges and universities have been designed around

.ie convenience of the faculty. The premise underlying many of those services has been

that students cannot be trusted to make wise and honest judgments about their education.

Both of these assumptions increase cost and limit effectiveness. IMAGINE an institution

that gives those served a decision-making voice in resource allocation decisions so that they

can determine the activities in which they would like marginal resources invested.

Productivity and institutional objectivescreating incentives

While touting teamwork and strategic planning as essential, most institutions reward

lividual rather than group performance and few offer incentives that motivate people to

strive toward institutional rather than personal objectives. Productivity is one example:

employees typically receive no reward for increasing "output" or decreasing costs.

IMAGINE a college with a compensation system that tangibly rewards employee

contributions to institutional aims and performance. For instance, for each $1 reduction in

the cost of education, an employee receives a $10 increase in base salary.


Institutional Governance - aligning management with desired outcomes

Today most institutions are set-up to manage inputs and costs; not surprisingly, we get

improved inputs and more costs.17 IMAGINE an administration, faculty and board of

trustees all in agreement on the need to manage outcomes rather than focusing heavily on

inputs and promulgating rules.

Certainly today many institutions; working on these dimensions of change. Yet

few colleges and universities have adopted a holistic approach that grasps the

interrelationships among problems and captures the potential synergy that might lead to a

true paradigm shift. Some examples:

While some institutions are energetically redesigning educational delivery through

intensive use of telecommunications, it is unlikely they are simultaneously

working to change the reward structure which may inhibit widespread use of

such delivery channels.

While we promote the development of new instructional packages, we overlook

the significant impact that empowering "customers" can have on both

curriculum restructuring and accountability measures.

Tenure is viewed as the primary obstacle to institutional flexibility while few

proposals are developed that speak directly to changing existing incentive

structures18.

In summary, the forces at work (see step 1) are the broad societal shifts underway

which are propelling change. The live key strategies (step 2) have been purposely

designed to focus attention on those attributes essential to the emerging paradigm. The

characteristics of the educational system (gyp 3) are those attributes, which if changed,

would yield the greatest likelihood of needed institutional redefinition. As institutions work

17Thanks to Peter I lutchinson of the Public Strategies Group (St. Paul, Mn.) for this point.18 For a comprehensive proposal laying out an agenda for change aimed at changing incentive structuresand reshaping faculty productivity, see Ileydinger and Simsek (1992).

- 5 7 -

DRAFTSirmek & lieydingcr

through steps 2 and 3, they must then go back and ensure that their proposed changes

respond to the force at work which are outlined in step 1.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

To recapitulate, this paper began with a theoretical examination of paradigms. The

University of Minnesota case study demonstrates the power of metaphor, exemplars, and

myths in maintaining and even building new paradigms. We also believe that effective

work in designing new paradigms requires a thorough understanding of the current

paradigm of populism and its rich history in the 19th and 20th centuries. We believe

strongly that this third phase of populism, managed populism, shows all the signs of being

the final phase of this current paradigm.

The preeminent position which traditional American higher education occupies

within the United States and the world is not nearly as firm as we might think. There is a

growing list of industries (e.g., telephone, mechanical watches) and organizations (e.g.,

General Motors, Harley Davidson, IBM) which were in dominant and seemingly

unassailable positions only a few short years ago. Certainly none of these industries and

organizations have gone out of business or become extinct. Yet the central position they

occupied in which they set the tone, they determined the paradigm, and they controlled the

quality of the product or service has drastically eroded if not disappeared. This may not he

all bad.

Today there are many people in higher education who, given our industry's long

and successful history, are confident that today's anomalies will pass without substantial

change. We, too, see this as a real possibility; however, we do not see it as desirable.

Traditional higher education Ain continue to exist. There is little. reason to use metaphors

of "extinction" or "dinosaurs." However, like the industries and corporations cited above,

traditional higher education could easily lose its central position if it does not respond and

vespond dynamically.

-58-

DRAFTSinnek & Heydinger

Two examples with different underlying causes are instructive. Throughout the

first seventy years of this century, the U.S. Post Office was the "dominant paradigm" in

package delivery. An outside provider (i.e., Federal Express) developed a new

organziational paradigm and the industry was revolutionized. The US Post Office

continues to be a large provider of package shipping services; however, the industry

standard is set by others, and today the postal service has u fraction of the market. In a

second example, no longer are municipal, state, and federal law enforcement officials the

dominant provider of security services. Other needs developed, and the police could not or

did not respond. Thus today the majority of security services are provided by private

services and technologies.

In both examples, we can easily argue that this paradigm shift improved the service

available to the ultimate client. However, if traditional American higher education

organizations are confident that they have the best understanding of quality, the best

understanding of the needs of society, and the most essential experience at deliverying this

service, then they must respond to the challenges facing higher education. This is not to

imply that U.S. higher education does a poor job. To the contrary, American higher

education is the envy of the world, and rightfully so. Yet today there is growing

recognition of the real and substantial room for improvement. And the shifts at work in our

larger society are increasingly going to demand increased performance from higher

education.

Our analysis convinces us that the next two decades will he witness to some of the

most significant changes in the history of higher education. The hest way to ensure an

effective, viable higher education system in the next wittily is if higher education leaders

step forward and work aggressively to shape this change, rather than let the inevitable

winds of change work on their own. If we don't, the paradigm periods of crisis and

selection may result in another "product class" with entirely different providers defining the

dominant paradigm for American higher education. And, those writing about higher in the

-59-67


21st century education will note that the current, dominant paradigm was developed by an

emergent group of new organizations.

-60-

MYTHSDomain 1

Metaphysicalassumptions

Knowledge-based belief system generated in organizationftheory of Gallon)

NJEL6PHORS

Short-hand description of underlying belief ay Is

Practi4.41assumption

Internal and External Organizational Reality

Figure 1: Organization as Paradigm

Available Industry Know I edge-Base(Structured Groups of Knowledge, Sources of Root-Paradigms)

(

Ownain1MYTHS Metaphysical

assumptionsKnovledge-based belief 'yet.. generated in organization

(theory of action)

METAPHORS

Short-hand description of underlying belief system

EXEMPLARS

Strategies and hypotheses of action

Domain 2Practicalassumptions

Internal and External Organizational Reality

Figure 2: Organization as Paradigm: An Interpretive Process

6N11.)

INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE-BASE

COMPETING

PARADIGMS

0 F- U:"

1111

i1:

\ RANDOM SHOCKS /

TRIGGERING EVENTS

le!

NORMALCY -> ANOMALIES

CRISIS

SELECTION

TRANSITION

NORMALCY

>

Figu

re 3

: Org

aniz

atio

nal C

hang

e as

Par

adig

m S

hift

Str

uctu

ral c

onfig

urat

ion

of o

rgan

izat

ion

(org

. as

mac

hine

s, a

ssem

bly

line,

s c

.)

Dom

inan

t Int

elle

ctua

lrin

gs (

posi

tivis

m)

'nit

itu fl

oris

tP

rot a

l ypa

s(

lire

Gui

nan

mod

el,

rorn

alf

Nat

tily)

Aca

dem

ic R

evol

utio

n

Str

uctu

ral-f

unct

iona

list

syst

ems

appr

oach

"Am

eric

an fi

nanc

ing

capa

city

is In

finite

'

Shi

fts In

inte

llect

ual f

ront

s(P

ost-

posi

tivis

m)

Shi

fts In

the

conf

igur

atio

nof

org

aniz

atio

ns--

.

from hi

llL

II

to c

olle

geto

uni

vers

itr.

Dom

inan

tS

ocia

l Ide

olog

y(P

rogr

essi

veM

ovitn

ifint

)

I()

1al

lsnl

(IIn

el s

uppo

rtfu

r M

g. 'd

u.)

he E

ntre

pren

euria

lP

opu

ism

Pop

ulis

m

Mor

rill A

ct18

62

he M

anag

eP

opul

ism

Ano

mal

ies

"Gro

wth

& e

xpan

sion

`Lim

ited

reso

urce

s'D

eclin

ing

qual

ity"S

ize

'Pro

gram

dup

licat

ion

'Lea

ders

hip

'Acc

ount

abili

ty*S

ize

redu

ctio

n'L

ean

orga

niza

tion

"Qua

lity

enha

ncem

ent

*Cen

tral

izat

ion

*Hig

her

stan

dard

sS

ocia

l Nee

ds(in

dust

rializ

atio

n,m

acha

nlia

tIon

of a

gric

ultu

re)

Reg

iona

l clim

ata

(U, o

f W11

.)

Indu

stria

l Rev

olut

ion

Em

erge

nce

1;7

1900

-194

5T

he G

I

The

Spu

tnik

Wor

ld W

ar II

Laun

ch

Agr

icul

ture

toIn

dust

rial P

rodu

ctio

n

1945

-197

519

75-1

920

Nor

mal

cyA

nom

alie

sC

risis

Cris

isR

evol

utio

nT

rans

ition

Shi

fts In

the

soci

al, e

cono

mic

,po

litic

al u

nit

(indi

vidu

al)

Info

rmat

ion

Rev

olut

ion

Glo

bal

Res

truc

t.

Figu

re 4

: The

evo

lutio

n of

the

popu

list p

arad

igm

in A

mer

ican

hig

her

educ

atio

n

btu

Btu

ccry

IMIL

AS

LE

DRAFTSimsek & iieydinger

REFERENCES

Ammentorp W. and M. Johnson (1989a). "The Definition and Diffusion ofProfessional Paradigms," Paper presented at the annual meeting of AmericanEducational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Ammentorp, W. and M. Johnson (1989h). "Paradigm Consensus and theOrganization of Scientific Literature," Paper presented at the annual meetingof American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Alpert, Daniel (1985), "Performance and Paralysis: The Organizational Context of theAmerican Research University," Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 56, No.3, pp. 241-81.

Altbach, Philip G. (1981), "Stark Realities: The Academic Profession in the 1980s," inPhilip G. Altbach and Robert 0. Berdahl (eds.), Higher Education inAmerican Society, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Baldwin, Roger G. (1985). "Correlates of the Vital Academic Careers: What DoWe Know? What Do We Need to Know?", Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Chicago, IL.

Bloom, Allan (1987), The Closing of the American Mind, New York, NY: Simonand Schuster.

Bok, Derek (1990). Universities and the Future of America, Duke UniversityPress.

Boyer, Ernest L. (1990), Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of theProfessoriate, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement ofTeaching, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,

Brown, Richard H. (1978), "Bureaucracy As Praxis: Toward a Political Phenomenologyof Formal Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 365-382.

Burns, T. and G.M. Stalker (1961) The Management of Innovation, London:Tavistock.

Campbell, J. and B. Moyers (1988). The Power of Myth, New York, NY: Doubleday

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1975), More Than Survival:Prospects for Higher Education in a Period of Uncertainty, SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, Burton (1981), "The Insulated Americans: Five Lessotia From Abroad," in PhilipG. Altbach and Robert 0. Berdahl (eds.), Higher Education in AmericanSociety, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Combs, A. (1977). Myths in Education, Boston, MA: Allyn Si. Bacon.

Cowley, W,I-I. and Don Williams (1991), international and Historical Roots ofAmerican Higher Education, New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.


Dethomasis, L., W. Ammentorp and M. Fox (1991). Tbe Transformal Organization,Winona, MN: Metanoia Press.

Dolence, M. and D. Norris (1992). Presentation at the annual meeting of the Society forCollege and University Planning, Minneapolis, MN.

Duryea, E.D. (1981), "The University and the State: A Historical Overview," in Philip G.Aithach and Robert 0. Berdahl (eds.), Higher Education in AmericanSociety, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Freeman, J. (1982). "Organizational Life Cycles and Natural Selection Process", in B.Staw and L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior(Vol. 4). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Greiner, E.L. (1972). "Evolution and P 'volution as Organizations Grow," IlarvardBusiness Review, July-August.

Griffiths, D.E., A.W. Hart and B.G. Blair (1991). "Still Another Approach toAdministration: Chaos Theory," Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol.XXVII, No. 3.

Halherstarn, David (1991). The Next Century, New York, NY: Morrow.

Hannan, M. & J.H. Freeman (1977). "The Population Ecology of Organizations ",American Journal of Sociology, 32: 929-64.

Hedberg, B (1981). "How Organizations Learn and Unlearn," in Paul C. Nystrom andWilliam H. Starhuck (eds), Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol 1,New Y)rk: Oxford University Press.

Hedberg, B. and S.A. Jonsson (1977). "Strategy Formulation as a DiscontinuousProcess," International Studies of Management and Organization, 7: 89-109.

Henry, David D. (1975) Challenges Past, Challenges Present: An Analysis ofAmerican Higher Education Since 1930 (Carnegie Council Series on PolicyStudies in Higher Education), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-bass.

Heydinger, R.B. and Hasan Sitnsek (1992), An Agenda For Reshaping FacultyProductivity, State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), Denver. CO.

Imershein, Allen W. (1977a). "Organi/ational Change As Paradi" a Shifts," TheSociological Quarterly, 18: 33-43.

(1977b). "The Epistemological Bases of Social (lido: Toward EthnoparadiginAnalysis," in David R. Heise (ed)tioriolugicul Methodology, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Jencks. Chi istoplier and Reisman (1968), The Ai-, &wile Revolution, Garden('uy, NY: Doubleday.

Jonsson, Sten A. and Roll A. I undo) (1977), "Myths and Wishful Thinking AsManagement Tools," in Paul C. Nystrom and William H. Starhuck (cds),

Gal-62-

DRAFTSiinsek & Heydinger

Prescriptive Models of Organizations, Vol. 5, Amsterdam: Noth-HollandPublishing Company.

Kerr, K. (1990). "Higher Education Cannot Escape History: The 1990s," in L.W. Jonesand A. Nowotny, New Directions For Higher Education, No. 70.

Kerr, Clark and Marian Gade (1981), "Current and Emerging Issues Facing AmericanHigher Education," in Philip G. Altbach and Robert 0. Berdahl (eds.), HigherEducation in American Society, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (2nd. ed.),Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1982). Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL: Universityof Chicago Press.

Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch (1967) Organization and Environment, Cambridge,MA: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.

Levy, Amir (1986). "Second-Order Planned Change: Definition and Conceptualization,"Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 15: 5-20.

Lincoln, Yvonna S. (1990), "Trouble in the Land: The Paradigm Revolution in theAcademic Disciplines," in John C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbookof Theory and Research, Vol. 6, New York, NY: Agathon Press.

Louis, K.S. and Hasan Simsck (1991), "Paradigm Shifts and OrganizationalLearning: Some Theoretical Lessons for Restructuring Schools," Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the University Council for EducationalAdministration, Baltimore, MD.

Mayhew, L.B., P.J. Ford and D.L. Hubbard (1990), The Quest For Quality: TheChallenge For Undergraduate Education in the 1990s, San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, R.H. (1980) Macro Organizational Behavior, Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Miller, Danny and Peter H. Friesen (1980). "Momentum and Revolution in OrganizationalAdaptation," Academy of Management Journal, 23: 591-614.

Mil lett, John (1981), "State Government," in Philip G. Althach and Robert 0. Berdahl(eds.), Higher Education in American Society, Buffalo, NY: PrometheusBooks.

Mingle, James R. (1992). "Public Policy and Faculty Teaching Loads," Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Higher Education,Chicago, IL.

Nlohrman. Allan M., Jr. and Edward E. Lawler!!! (1985). "The Diffusion of QW1. As aParadigm Shift," in WilITC110. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin tedsI,The Planning of Change (4th ed.), New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Morgan, Gareth (1980).

-63-71


More -m, Gareth (1986). Images of Organization, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Naisbitt, J. and P. Aburdene (1985) Re-inventing the Corporation, New York, NY:Warner Books.

Naisbitt, J. and P. Aburdene (1990) Megatrends 2000: Ten New Directions forthe 1990s, New York, NY: Morrow.

Peters, Tom (1987), Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a ManagementRevolution, New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Peters, Thomas J. and Robert H. Waterman (1982), In Search of Excellence:Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies, New York: WarnerBooks.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). "Management As Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance ofOrganizational Paradigms," in L. L. Cummins and Barry M. Staw (eds),Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.

(1982). Organizations and Organization Theory, Boston: Pitnam.

Pfeffer, J. and G.R. Salancik (1978). The External Control of Organizations: AResource Dependence Perspective, New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Prigogine, I. and I. Stengers (1984). Order Out of Chaos, New York, NY: RandomHouse.

Reich, Robert B. (1991). Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves For 21stCentury Capitalism, New York, NY: A.A. Knopf.

Sackmann, Sonja (1989). "The Role of Metaphors in Organization Transformation,"Human Relations, 42: 463-485.

Sheldon, Alan (1980). "Organizational Paradigms: A Theory of Organizational Change,"Organizational Dynamics, (Winter): 61-80.

Simsek, Hasan and Karen S. Louis (1991), "Organizational Change As AParadigm Shift: Analysis of Change Process in a Large, PublicUniversity," Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council forEducational Administration, Baltrnore, MD.

Simsek, Hasan (1992), "Organizational Change as a Paradigm Shift: Analysisof Organizational Change Process in a Large, Public University byUsing a Paradigm-based Change Model," Unpublished DoctoralDissertation. Minneapolis. MN: University of Minnesota.

Sterman, John D. (1985). ''The Growth of Knowledge: Testing a Theory of ScientificRevolutions With a Formal Model," Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, 28: 93-122.

Toffler, A. (1991). Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edgeof the 21st Century, New York, NY: Bantam.


Tushman, Michael L. and Elaine Romanelli (1985). "Organizational Evolution: AMetamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation," Research inOrganizational Behavior, 7: 171-222.

Westerlund, Gunnar and Sven-Erik Sjostrand (1979). Organizational Myths, NewYork: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Westmeyer, Paul (1985), A History of American University, Springfield, IL:Charles C. Thomas Publisher

Woodward, J. (1965) Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, London:Oxford University Press.

Hasan Simsek received his B.S. from the Middle East Technical University (Ankara,Turkey), an M.S. from Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey), and M.A. from theUniversity of Minnesota. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota ineducational administration in 1992, and his dissertation received "Outstanding DissertationAward in theoretical modeling" from the International Society For Educational Planning.His scholarly interests focus on paradigm theory and its applications to organizationalbehavior and learning, leadership, and the management of change.

Richard B. Heydinger is a Senior Fellow in the department of Educational Policy andAdministration at the Unversity of Minnesota; he is also Executive Director of the Alliancefor Higher Education, a coalition of resources brought together with the specific intent ofassisting baccalaureate programs restructure their current operations. He received a B.A.from Carleton College in mathematics, an MBA from Indiana Univrsity in quantitaivebusiness analysis, and a PhD from the University of Michigan in higher education.

-65-

document resume ed 352 923 he 026 123 · 2014. 5. 5. · document resume ed 352 923 he 026 123...

Documents